Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
John Miner on Brogden's media and Cuming's case
G'day. John Miner is a Webdiary columnist who's worked both sides of the fence, as journo and media minder for a pollie, in his case Paul Keating. (His Webdiary bio is here.) John emailed:
"I haven't done this exercise for a while, but there are so many double standards being raised in the wake of the Mouse Pack's failure to report the Brogden affair, I thought it worthwhile to take a critical look at some.This version of events appeared on smh.com.au. NOTE: I finished a draft of this before John Brogden went into hospital; I haven't changed my comments on the article."
John Miner on Brogden's media and Cuming's case
by John Miner
I've been around long enough to know a proposition
August 30, 2005, SMH
Angela Cuming, a Sun-Herald reporter, was among journalists who encountered John Brogden drinking at the Hilton. This is her version of the night.
I went to the Australian Hotel Association's annual dinner to catch up with colleagues and contacts. [Not really working, then.]
The function was held in a room inside the Hilton Hotel, not at the Marble Bar as has been reported. [I fail to see the importance]
By 9.30pm, the event was winding down. Speeches had been made, a few business cards exchanged, when John Brogden and a few of his staffers walked in.
It was only a day after Bob Carr had resigned and Brogden looked to be in high spirits. Lots of back-slapping and high fives from people in the room.
I didn't speak to Brogden at the official function. [NOTE] I said my goodbyes to a few people, scanned the room and noticed Brogden had already left.
I went downstairs to join colleagues at the Marble Bar for a nightcap before going home. ["Colleagues" now, not "contacts"; definitely not working]
We were surprised when we spotted Brogden, even merrier than when we first saw him, standing among the heaving bodies and clutching a beer. The Opposition Leader was in fine form, working the room like a man on a mission - with every pretty girl catching his eye. Some got a hug or an arm around the shoulders.
A male colleague of mine excused himself to go and chat to Brogden. They stood off to one side of the bar, talking. When I wandered over to join them, I approached Brogden [NOTE who approached whom] with Carr's resignation in the front of my mind. I was hoping to ask him about his chances of winning the next election. But I never quite got that far.
I said: "Hi, John" and started to ask him about his chances of taking western Sydney Labor seats. He then stopped me by raising one hand.
He slipped one arm around the small of my back, leant down and said: "Enough of that. Are you available?" I must have looked startled, as did my colleague.
I stumbled out some reply on the lines of: "No, I have a boyfriend, thanks very much."
Brogden froze. Beer in hand, he looked at me, my colleague, one of his staffers, then back to me. It must have clicked. I wasn't another young girl at the Marble Bar he might try to chat up. I was a newspaper reporter. [Why wasn't she "another young girl at the Marble Bar"? She hadn't spoken to him at the function, hadn't introduced herself as a reporter; she was "a young girl"and she was at the Marble Bar]
He appeared to realise he had made a terrible mistake.
To be fair, I never introduced myself as Angela Cuming, Sun-Herald, but I thought he knew I was with the assembled reporters. [He isn't allowed an assumption, but she is]
He asked his staffer to hold his beer and said he needed to go to the toilet. But he must have high-tailed it out of there. We never saw him again that night. His behaviour, leading up to that event and his comments to me, shocked me and the colleagues I was with.
Here was the Opposition Leader, who had just been dealt the best break of his career with Bob Carr's resignation, carrying on like a young single looking to add a few numbers to his little black book.
We were doubly shocked that his staffers were standing by, drinking with him, and not calling a taxi as they should have done.
I, like every other girl in Sydney, is used to the odd drunken suit throwing out a dodgy pick-up line in a bar on a Friday night. It makes me feel uncomfortable any time, as I believe women have a right to a night out without being harassed. [Who was harassing whom? Who approached whom?]
But when it is a politician with a wife and young child at home, then that really makes my blood boil.
What has upset me is Brogden first claiming the incident took place at the AHA function. It didn't. The AHA event was over and I was with colleagues at a bar, trying to enjoy myself.
Brogden made his remarks to me under the impression I was just a girl at a bar on a Friday night. [Wasn't she? See above]
But I am not his mate. I don't share jokes with him in the corridors of Macquarie Street. [So why should he have recognised her, as she assumed he would?] Nor do I accept Brogden's claim yesterday that his actions were in jest.
I have been around long enough to know when a proposition is a proposition.
Being drunk is no excuse to make any woman, of any age and in any social situation, feel like I did that night. [Even though "like every other girl in Sydney" she is "used to the odd drunken suit throwing out a dodgy pick-up line in a bar on a Friday night."]
*
Ms Cuming is a well regarded reporter, but this report represents the application of the egg-beater with the "moral outrage" dial turned up to 11. And it is curious that Ms Cuming says she is not one of Mr Brogden's mates and still did not introduce herself as a reporter, but merely expected him to be aware of her presence and her job.
Members of the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (AJA Division) - as all the Advocate's staff are - commit to a code of ethics and that's a part of it: you should declare who you are and for whom you're working if you want to report what people tell you. Most of us take it seriously, but it can be a judgment call in the situation Ms Cuming describes.
Members also commit to tell the story (when they have obtained it ethically). The question remains: why didn't Angela Cuming or anyone else tell this one earlier? Why did none of her "colleagues" report it? Even if the AHA function were off the record, that function was over, wasn't it? Ms Cuming says so; she says these events happened in a different venue: why were they not reportable? And why were they not reported? Alternatively, if they weren't reportable because the details were not gained ethically, what makes them reportable now?
As for off-the-record functions…I know that they occur - the Placido Domingo speech came out of such an event - but I have never accepted an invitation as a journalist to attend such a thing. The off-the-record rules, often misunderstood by the public, are sacrosanct to members of the MEAA.
One of my former colleagues, Michael Harvey of the Herald-Sun's Canberra bureau, is looking at porridge for contempt of court for refusing to reveal who let him see some documents in 2004 that have already resulted in serious consequences for a public servant.
Even if they got the wrong public servant, Harvey cannot under the Alliance code of ethics tell the court who would have been the right one.
Journalists do go to jail for this principle from time to time. The industry supports them because it's very helpful to all journos for sources to be reminded that they will not be dropped in it, even to the courts.
Not all observe the rules.
The easiest way to avoid ethical dilemma, I believe, is never to accept an invitation to such an event.
But this wasn't such an event. Ms Cuming says so. So why didn't she write it three weeks ago? Why did none of the reporters who witnessed the events write the story then?
Grahame Morris, a former adviser to John Howard and now principal of a p.r. firm, went on television to explain that journalists usually know quite a lot of stories that they don't tell. They all have their favourites and wouldn't dob on them. The relationship is symbiotic.
Mark Riley, a gun reporter, had steam coming out his ears almost visibly, but his riposte was delectable: in the modern press gallery, he said, reporters did not become friends of politicians or their families.
The emphasis was subtle but perceptible, and put Morris in his place: yesterday. Yet Mr Morris's explanation has the virtue of making sense of the failure of reporters who witnessed the events in the Marble Bar to write the story.
Apart from that, Riley might have been expounding a principle long held in America: if you want a friend in Washington, buy a dog. It's good advice for both those who report and those reported on.
I feel sorry for Ms Cuming. Her story appears and Mr Brogden, apparently, attempts suicide. That is not her fault. People who attempt suicide are responsible for their own actions.
I feel doubly sorry for her because she wrote, "What has upset me is Brogden first claiming the incident took place at the AHA function." She must have been shattered when the group editor-in-chief of Fairfax's metropolitan newspapers and acting editor of The Sydney Morning Herald, Mark Scott, said on smh.com.au today:
When John Brogden confessed to our reporter on Sunday night, confirming on the record his behaviour at that Australian Hotels Association party and his racial slur …
He proceeded with his explanation of how the paper had covered the political story and not the personal, but it makes me wonder which stories he read and how he knows what his paper has published. Certainly Ms Cuming's was personal: it's in the first person.
The one other element of the whole tale that amuses me as much as anything is the assumption underlying all the myth-making that women journalists are vestal virgins.
The Alliance code of ethics must have mistakenly omitted the vow of chastity.
In reality, journalists have their own lives. If they are sexually active, who should be surprised?
I have known female reporters who have had affairs - some casual in the extreme, some serious and long-lasting - with male reporters, superiors in the office, politicians, political staffers, even each other.
So what? They have always seemed to me perfectly capable of negotiating these situations like other mature adults, i.e. sometimes with success
The journalist herself must decide whether it compromises her ability to report on a particular person or field of endeavour, but the suggestion that a political figure, or a rock star or any other person in the public eye, can't try to negotiate something that goes beyond professional acquaintance is, frankly, immature. Because such things do happen.
What remains unexplained is the failure of anyone to write the story.
There has been a view among political reporters that the private can be separated from the political. It's the same as the view - once dominant and still prevalent - among sports reporters that what happens on tour stays on tour.
As various cases of the past two or three years have shown in sport, that's not really tenable.
Perhaps it was the remorseful recognition that they had failed which prompted Sydney's media to respond with the throttles wide open when they were upstaged from Canberra.
It's a question worth further examination, because our democracy depends not only on the behaviour of politicians. The media have a proper role, too.
 |
 |
 |
| © 2006 - 2008, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of Webdiary Pty Ltd. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
re: John Miner on Brogden's media and Cuming's case
Greg Hynes as usual avoiding the question.
You said: "...the mainstream Australian people are not homophobic but they are definitely not pro-gay marriage and efforts to somehow promote it in the public arena. They are not in favour of public schools hijacked to promote a political view point, injecting rooms in their suburbs, limitless and any-term abortions, disrespect for the flag, unlimited generational welfare dependency and many other common Left platforms."
I said: "Ah so then the extreme right faction that according to your analysis is both close to the Australian mainstream and there one minute and not there the next are not homophobic? Prove that they are not."
It all goes back to your definition of the 'mainstream'. You juxtapose a lot of unproven subjective characteristics of your mainstream which is far more to the right than available statistics suggest. You have provided no proof of public schools being hijacked for anything, though they are convenient for your scapegoating Government buddies to use when they want to undermine them.
Does 'welfare dependency' include handouts to wealthy women who are rich enough to stay home with their babies?
Does that mean if the King's Cross injecting room closes you will then create two health problems - heroin addiction coupled with the risk of transmission of blood-borne diseases?
What's the flag got to do with anything?
Hence your group is not mainstream.
Secondly chart the points of intersection of your definition with the extreme Right of the Liberal Party.
Then thirdly give me proof that neither your 'mainstream' as you have defined it nor the extreme Right of the Liberal Party are sexist, racist or homophobic.
And Bob Wall would like answers on those points too.
re: John Miner on Brogden's media and Cuming's case
Carl Fowler, which part of the post questioning Brogden's treatment by the media did you find contradictory and illogical? Bob Hawke belonged to a different era, these days Labor Left is more likely to be represented by the likes of hard core lefties Tanya Pilbersek sympathetic to anti-Israel arguments.
Chris Minnox don’t worry, there is not a leftie letter the Fairfax group won't publish. The Liberal party is shifting to the right because the grassroots wants it that way and the Australian population has shifted right. It's up to the party to sort that out and not some Labor activist. Regarding abortions maybe the public is pro-choice, but they do want term limits and they want some kind of restrictions on the procedures carried out. The Left’s obsession with abortion is quite sad, it exposes them for what they are. I am bemused at their enthusiasm for defending Brogden, who I would not support for his racist and adulterous behaviour, does it really matter which faction exposed him?
James Govett, the Rev Phelps and his church do not have any support among mainstream Christians, the church members are mostly his family members. I do not support his tactics, and in fact there is a feeling that he is a plant just for the media and Gay activists to portray Christians as hate mongers (when it is not the case), Phelps and his hate driven gang lack credibility and common support.
Dee Bayliss, any proof that the extreme Right wing you mentioned are homophobic? You made the allegation, now back it up. Extreme Right for who? For someone who sits on the fringes of Aust politics any one who is centre Right would appear extreme Right. Just because they are against gay marriages does not mean they are homophobic, they do not endorse homosexuality but are not homophobic. The Liberals and the Right wing in general are strong supporters of Israel, anti-Semitism is not our policy and rather it is pretty obvious that the Left is the home of anti-Semitism when you look at the various conspiracy theories floating around in their circles. Also with injecting rooms, it is not a question of one or many but a question of philosophy. The Right wing does not endorse the concept of drug usage acceptance in the name of harm minimisation, it is question of policy.
re: John Miner on Brogden's media and Cuming's case
Greg Hynes you stated this, now back it up
"There could be a very right wing faction within the NSW liberals, but at least they are close to the mainstream than the ratbag Left elements in the ALP can ever be."
If there "could be", ie there may or may not be, how can you then say "but at least they are close to the mainstream". Make up your mind. What mainstream? Of what?
"[T]he mainstream Australian people are not homophobic"
Ah so then the extreme right faction that according to your analysis is both close to the Australian mainstream and there one minute and not there the next are not homophobic? Prove that they are not.
"…but they are definitely not pro-gay marriage"
But if they are not homophobic then why do they oppose gay marriage?
"They are not in favour of public schools hijacked to promote a political view point, injecting rooms in their suburbs, limitless and any term abortions, disrespect for the flag, unlimited generational welfare"
Show us statistics on where any of this occurs. As far as I know there is one injecting room in King's Cross. One suburb.
"As for anti-Semitism, the allegation put forward by Yusuf has been vigorously denied by the right wing faction"
Again you alleging that this faction said it doesn't do it for me. Where's the proof?
re: John Miner on Brogden's media and Cuming's case
G'day James Govett, thanks for that last post, aahh so many fond memories, that goes into my personal collection GH Volume II "The Wilderness Years", it is on my shelf next to GH's "World" the Black and White Album, it's mono and emanates from my right speaker only.
re: John Miner on Brogden's media and Cuming's case
Greg Hynes: “Dee Bayliss, the mainstream Australian people are not homophobic….”
Even in Newtown, where there is a high proportion of gay couples most would not dare to walk down the street hand in hand with their partners for fear of verbal abuse or physical abuse. In most other suburbs things are worst. There is a large element of antagonism towards homosexuals in Australia.
Greg Hynes, you claim mainstream Australian people are not homophobic. Let’s see what your attitudes towards homosexuality are. I’ve asked this question twice before and you have not answered. I’ll try a third time.
Some background:
The Rev. Fred Phelps is minister at the Westboro Baptist Church.
He hates fags. He has a web-site called www.godhatesfags.com to prove it
In 1998 Matthew Shephard, a young gay student, was beaten to death, and left
hanging on a fence.
The Rev. Fred Phelps wants everyone to know that god hates fags, so he
picketed Mathew's funeral. He also picketed this boy's funeral.
The Rev. Fred Phelps has dedicated a monument to Matthew.
Greg Hynes, what are your feelings about the Rev. Fred Phelps, his “monument” to Matthew Shephard in hell and his behaviour at funerals?
GH, “Paul Walter, can you desist from personal attacks and indulge in rational discussions.”
Greg Hynes, in the SMH What Harry Believes Thread, and in reference to your fellow webdiarists, you said, “Don't know what you are trying to say, apologise to who and what for? Apologising to liars, trolls is not in my way of doing things.” And if I recall correctly the moderator felt you were in the wrong. The moderator was JR and his comment was, “GH, ML is right in this case, and you were wrong. Simple as that. Meanwhile, the rest of us are all Exodus'd out...”
GH, “ …. so when I say Left factions I meant factions which advocated far left policies in the social arena”.
Is this in anyway consistent with C Parsons understanding of “the left”, i.e., “…Marxist or psuedo-Marxist ideologues…”. My understanding is that Marxism supports abortion.
What is the common ground you and C.Parsons share when denigrating “the left”? And in which respects do you differ about what constitutes “the left”?
Dee Bayliss: “Chris and Bob have you noticed how Greg Hynes does not respond to requests such as my "define far Left".
Actually, I asked Greg Hynes to define “left” a few months ago. His actual post was at May 3, 2005 10:34 PM on the “What Harry Really Believes Thread” but my summary of it is:
1. People who "depend on a merely utilitarian calculus". I don't understand what this means. Please explain.
2. People who, "depend on the endless assertion of limitless rights".
3. People who "believe in relative morals not absolute values".
4. People who are anti-religion, mostly anti-christian.
5. People who are, "obsessed with environmental issues bordering on irrationality".
6. People who, "although believers in democracy themselves but don't believe it when progressive ideals are not implemented".
7. People who are, "firm believers in an activist judiciary that makes new laws rather than intepreting existing ones".
8. People who are "strong opponents of the death penalty and capital punishment but fierce and passionate defenders of abortion".
9. People who are, "firm believers in world Government - like the UN - and patriotism is considered dirty, think the role of the Government is to re-engineer a progressive society".
Perhaps a thread on the question of what is the left is well overdue. Since “the left” is denigrated so often it would be interesting to know which people, set of ideas, political parties etc. are being referred to.
re: John Miner on Brogden's media and Cuming's case
Greg Hynes, in an interview with Lateline on September 2, Grahame Morris said,
“GRAHAME MORRIS: They are playing rough. They are playing very rough. It's basically on four or five issues. Before people go too berserk, if you have a look at those issues, whether or not the gay age of consent should be lowered to 16, whether or not there should be injecting rooms. The community has a bit of a problem with those as well. The abortion one is a real problem. It's a problem for all political parties if anyone wants to re-open that one. It's a shocker.
MAXINE MCKEW: Well, does David Clarke want to open that one?
GRAHAME MORRIS: Well, by the look of it they do. There are four or five policy issues they will play very, very hard on. Whereas, most people will deal with them in a common sense way and put them into a whole barrel. These people get up in the morning and that is their reason to exist, to get some of those laws changed.”
Now Grahame Morris is no lefty. Grahame Morris is a former John Howard staffer and he said that far right faction in the Liberal Party are focused on four or five issues, abortion being one of them. He went on to say that they “get up in the morning and that is their reason to exist”. Sounds like the Left are not the ones obsessed with abortion.
In February this year David Clarke attended a forum about, guess what, abortion! At the forum he encouraged anti-abortion activists to try and get onto preselection panels to make Liberal MPs pay attention to (I wonder what it could be) abortion!
At the last Young Liberal conference the first motion was, unsurprisingly, a condemnation of Medicare funded abortion! Not term limits, not restrictions on procedures carried out, but a distinctly un-mainstream commitment to no Medicare abortions.
Now Greg Hynes, who was it you said was obsessed with abortion?
Furthermore, in reducing the issue down to, “I am bemused at their enthusiasm for defending Brogden, who I would not support for his racist and adulterous behaviour, does it really matter which faction exposed him?”, you utilise the same grotty gloss-over tactics employed by Miranda Devine. Brogden does not deserve to have his behaviour supported and he deserved to resign. What Brogden did not deserve was to have “BROGDEN’S SORDID PAST: Disgraced Liberal leader damned by secret shame file” on the front page of the Daily Telegraph. He did not deserve this because the secret shame file in question was later revealed to be a pack of lies delivered to the Telegraph by what that publications editor called “a source within the Liberal Party”.
Second question Greg. Was it right for Brogden’s colleague to pass a swag of lies about his personal life to the Daily Telegraph?
You also told me: “It's up to the party to sort that out and not some Labor activist.” That stopped being the case the moment that “source within the Liberal Party” wheeled a wheelbarrow full of fictitious dirt into the offices of the Telegraph, or maybe even before that when Brogden named Alex Hawke. It certainly stopped being a private matter when Patricia Forsythe dobbed on David Clarke on television, Tony Abbott’s comments to a branch meeting were leaked to Insiders and Joe Hockey attacked David Clarke publicly.
If the Liberal Party wants to air its dirty laundry in such a gratuitous fashion then Labor activists, Miranda Devine and everyone else in Australia has every right to comment on the skid marks.
re: John Miner on Brogden's media and Cuming's case
Greg Hynes, among the questions you have left unanswered is my request for you to provide evidence for your claim of a mutual agreement between us.
Please respond with the evidence.
re: John Miner on Brogden's media and Cuming's case
James Govett, while two guys holding hands in the street walking together would raise eyes, I don’t think that should be a problem for me personally as what adults behavior with their own conscience is their own business, however I don’t endorse it and won’t support Gay marriage etc. If there are hate filled people that also happen to be or call themselves Christians, well that’s just reflects the diversity of society but most Christians are not like that. I have in other posts defined what I consider as Leftism and yes some of C Parson’s definition will merge in that as well.
Chris Minnox, the Left's obsession with abortion and its virulent attack on anyone who takes a different position on this issue is sad really and exposes the lack of any values. Australia is one of the very few countries that does not have any federal term restrictions and is in the same league as many communist nations. Many pro-life campaigners are trying to have some restriction, however the Left in Australia is so obsessed with killing and so vehement in its support for abortion it really exposes their nihilistic and depraved nature. Brogden had only himself to blame for his predicament and behaviour, some one who indulges in racist and adulterous behaviour would not have done it out of isolation but most likely a deep flaw of character in them. Such a man should not be in leadership positions in politics, it does not matter which faction exposed him.
re: John Miner on Brogden's media and Cuming's case
Greg Hynes, it sounds like you find the Reverend Fred Phelps as vile and repulsive as do most other people.
GH: "...and in fact there is a feeling that he is a plant just for the media and gay activists to portray Christians as hate mongers (when it is not the case)..."
However, if he is not a 'plant' and he is the genuine article, then he is living proof that some Christians are hate-mongers.
Please link to a source that has found evidence that he is a 'plant'. If you cannot do so, on what basis do you raise the suspicion that he is a 'plant' - wishful thinking?
Some questions to which you didn't respond.
1. Do you think it is safe for a homosexual couple to walk hand in hand on Sydney suburban streets? If not, how does this accord with your notion that, "the mainstream of Australian people are not homophobic".
2. You said: "...so when I say Left factions I meant factions which advocated far left policies in the social arena."
Is this in anyway consistent with C Parsons understanding of 'the Left', ie, "Marxist or psuedo-Marxist ideologues." My understanding is that Marxism supports abortion. What is the common ground you and C Parsons share when each denigrates 'the Left'? In which respects do you differ about what constitutes 'the Left'?
re: John Miner on Brogden's media and Cuming's case
Greg Hynes: "I am not responding to Bob Wall's posts because it has been mutually agreed on the old Webdiary that he is just too much of a sophisticated intellect in his own mind to have a debate with myself, so I am not sure why he is unable to stick by his own words and position."
Please provide evidence for this.
You made assertions on this thread and were asked to substantiate them. Please do.
re: John Miner on Brogden's media and Cuming's case
GH: "Paul Walter can you desist from personal attacks and indulge in rational discussion."
But I have Greg. You just haven't been reading the other threads. But, if you call my pointing out that your Macarthyite nonsense is an example of 'personal attacks' I'm sorry, but the thread topic concerned the tabloid press and their allies predilection toward slandering people that do not fit into their idea of who is 'useful', rather as this happens increasingly also in the redneck US.
Adele Horin ("Extreme path will leave voters by the wayside", SMH, 10/9/05) talks of the downfall of a conservative Christian (do you mind!) John Ryan, of the NSW upper house, pushed out to make way for another of Clarke's mates (sounds like the USA, for Pete's sake!), who is further to the right. Senator George Brandis on Lateline last night also commented on the propensity of the NSW liberals to 'cannibalise' and regretted the tendency on both sides of politics when 'extremists' become involved.
So, signs of irrational behaviour bother many people; not just ones that you unthinkingly associate with 'the Left'. It is perfectly reasonable for people to seek answers concerning aberrations of normal behaviour when it spills into politics, considering the sorts of historical outcomes that unfold when this occurs (eg, General Franco's bloody regime in Spain; Mussolini in Italy and the Concordat, Stalin's Russia).
So why don't you refrain from 'personal attacks' like the one you made on Bob Wall and answer his, Dee Bayliss' and several other people's requests for clarifiction of some of your, shall we say more esoteric, 'theoretical' ideological explications. For my part I will stick with Monnox, Govett and a whole lot of other people thoughout this thread, simply because what they say ends up making more sense.
Perhaps you can start by offering a re-evaluation of Howard as a 'great' Prime Minister in light of the revelations concerning Telstra this week, perhaps including a reference to the biblical commandment "Thou shalt not Bear False Witness", as that applies to 'Mums and Dads' shareholders?
Remember, you will likely win more people over if you argue coherently rather than just insult folk. I mean this in all sincerity.
re: John Miner on Brogden's media and Cuming's case
Dee Bayliss, in one instance you make the allegation that the right wing factions in the NSW Liberals are homophobic, then you ask me to prove your allegation that they are not! What a hoot! So you make the allegation and I give the proof? I am not sure what your standard of proof is.
I am not responding to Bob Wall's posts because it has been mutually agreed on the old Webdiary that he is just too much of a sophisticated intellect in his own mind to have a debate with myself, so I am not sure why he is unable to stick by his own words and position. You have asked what I define as Left and been given enough examples. I have also laid out many points explaining why some of the right faction of NSW liberal’s policies are not really that far off from the mainstream, the proof is in the pudding. Howard is a conservative and by far the most successful PM in Australian recorded history since Menzies was PM.
re: John Miner on Brogden's media and Cuming's case
Greg Hynes: "James Govett, the allegation of Phelps being a media plant was just an allegation and a personal opinion and not necessarly backed by any evidence..."
If your allegation was not backed by any evidence why did you make it? What were you hoping to gain?
How would you feel if 8 to 30% of Australia’s Christian community reported being survivors of physical violence at some time in their life, where that violence is seen to be based on their religion?
re: John Miner on Brogden's media and Cuming's case
James Govett, the allegation of Phelps being a media plant was just an allegation and a personal opinion and not necessarly backed by any evidence and just considering some of the hateful things that have been done by the Phelps camp and which the media latches on.
Chris Minnox, the Left's obsession with abortion can be explained by its eagerness and its tactics to shut down any meaningful debate and its vociferous condemnation of pro-life camp. The Australian Left wants to maintain the status-quo on abortion which is the right to terminate the pregnancy or kill at any stage and no limits.
The Liberal faction group, if it delivered files on Brogden that were true, should be condemned, but no concrete proof exists to make that allegation.
Character flaws on Brogden got out as the truth eventually does get out, to divert attention on factions does no justice of the issue. Funny you should mention that Labor's faction issues are blowing all over the media with Latham's book exposing the deep structural flaws in the party and its political culture.
re: John Miner on Brogden's media and Cuming's case
Greg Hynes: "James Govett, while two guys holding hands in the street walking together would raise eyes..."
Dealing with "raised eyes" is relatively easy. Would that the problem were as minor as you are trying, for reasons that so far escape me, to make out.
From the Australian Institute of Criminology's website:
"Overall, the studies indicate that between eight and 30 per cent of lesbians and gays report being survivors of physical violence at some time in their life, where that violence is seen to be based on their sexuality.........Physical violence against lesbians and gays is often accompanied by verbal harassment. The epithets used are invariably abusive and involve some reference to the person’s sexuality......"
How would you feel if 8 to 30% of Australia’s Christian community reported being survivors of physical violence at some time in their life, where that violence is seen to be based on their religion”?
And here is the link to the Gay and Lesbian Antiviolence Project web-site. It provides a background for understanding the problem and it's scope.
Greg Hynes: "If there are hate filled people that also happen to be or call themselves Christians, well that’s just reflects the diversity of society...."
You seemed reluctant to acknowledge it earlier but yes, you are right, there are hate-filled Christians in the world.
And you didn’t respond to this comment/question. You raised the suspicion that the Rev. Fred Phelps might be a media and gay activist “plant” to help portray Christians as hate-mongers. Please link to a source that has found any evidence that he is a 'plant'. If you cannot do so, on what basis did you raise the suspicion?
Greg: “... Brogden had only himself to blame for his predicament and behaviour, some one who indulges in racist and adulterous behaviour would not have done it out of isolation...”
You are claiming John Brogden engaged in adultery which, as far as I know, is not correct.
re: John Miner on Brogden's media and Cuming's case
Greg Hynes you completely dodged my questions. I am not going to stop asking them until you address them properly.
On abortion you simply repeated your claim that the left was obsessed with abortion, ignoring all the evidence I presented that it was in fact social conservatives who are obsessed with abortion. Most on “the left” considered the issue of abortion to have been resolved long ago. It is social conservatives who have brought it up again. For example it was Tony Abbott who made headlines earlier this year with his comments about abortion. Alex Hawke commented that
“Abortion is not going to be off the agenda, it’s going to be back, probably bigger and better.”
So, Greg, answer me this. If it is social conservatives who hold forums on abortion, try and put it back on the agenda how can you say the left is obsessed.
Questions for you Greg and please, for the sake of your own credibility, answer them.
If the left is only responding to the words and actions of social conservatives how can you say they are obsessed?
Do you continue to stand by your statement that the left is obsessed with abortion?
If so can you provide any evidence whatsoever of this obsession, keeping in mind that responding to someone else does not indicate obsession?
And you totally avoided my questions about Brogden.
Do you believe that the Liberal source that delivered a dirt file full of lies about Brogden to the Daily Telegraph, that is who bore false witness against Brogden (something thou shalt not do) did the wrong thing?
re: John Miner on Brogden's media and Cuming's case
Greg Hynes, yet again I ask you to provide evidence of a mutual agreement between us. You might say you do not respond to me but in my opinion, as you have made a claim directly concerning me, you are obliged to respond with the evidence.
Please do so.
re: John Miner on Brogden's media and Cuming's case
James Govett, the allegation of being a media plant was just a personal opinion based on the media attention that that person gets. Also your statement, "How would you feel if 8 to 30% of Australia’s Christian community reported being survivors of physical violence at some time in their life, where that violence is seen to be based on their religion?" is puzzling, and I don't understand what you are trying to say. If it is a hypothetical question, then you have to be more clear when phrasing it for the debate.
re: John Miner on Brogden's media and Cuming's case
Greg Hynes: "Also your statement, 'How would you feel if 8 to 30% of Australia’s Christian community [etc., etc]' is puzzling, and I don't understand what you are trying to say. If it is a hypothetical question, then you have to be more clear when phrasing it for the debate."
You demonstrated ignorance of the level of physical and verbal abuse hurled at homosexuals each and every day when you suggested that 2 homosexuals walking hand in hand down the street would probably only cause "raised eyes".
I provided you with a quote from The Australian Institute of Criminology's web-site which states:
Since you have stated publicly many times that you are Christian, I asked you how you would feel if 8 to 30% of YOUR community, i.e. Australia’s Christian community, reported being survivors of physical violence at some time in their life, where that violence is seen to be based on their religion.
Greg Hynes, how would you feel if 8-30% of YOUR community, i.e. Australia’s Christian community, reported being survivors of physical violence at some time in their life, where that violence is seen to be based on their religion?
Greg Hynes: "James Govett, the allegation of being a media plant was just a personal opinion based on the media attention that that person gets".
The media do not need to plant him there. You have already admitted there are hate-filled Christians in the world. He and his congregation are just some of them. And the media have an obligation to focus on them because of the unimaginable hurt he is causing to the friends and family of dead human beings.
If hate-filled Christians started picketing the funerals of gay men in Australia would you tolerate it or would you consider it an expression of “free speech”?
re: John Miner on Brogden's media and Cuming's case
James Govett, dignity of human beings should be respected and violence against GLBT community should be condemned as does violence against any human being by another human being. Your hypothetical question 'how would you feel if 8-30% of YOUR community, ie. Australia’s Christian community, reported being survivors of physical violence at some time in their life, where that violence is seen to be based on their religion?', as I understand you suggest to correlate violence against GLBT community in relation to their beliefs. I don't deal in hypothetical questions, I have said clearly that violence against GLBT community should be condemned.
People are free to follow their own destiny and their desires but they have to live within the moral strictures laid down by the majority, human dignity has to be maintained and I condemn violence against GLBT community even though I don't endorse the community lifestyle or its behaviour.
Human nature and behaviour is diverse, the phelps gang behaviour of crashing in to funerals can be dealt firmly by the family members involved who can make it clear to the phelps gang what they think about them and this does not have to blown up by the media. The vast majority of Christians are decent, the media concentration on the few only shows their agenda. There are many gays whose public behaviour is despicable (Bob Brown etc), but the media does not seem to latch on to paint the whole community as such. Human nature is diverse, so to concentrate on odd behaviour exposes the agenda of the media.
re: John Miner on Brogden's media and Cuming's case
Greg Hynes, “...dignity of human beings should be respected...”
Yes it should.
Public disapproval of homosexuality does not respect the dignity of homosexual human beings and encourages verbal and physical violence.
GH: "...and violence against GLBT community should be condemned as does violence against any human being by another human being".
Yes it should.
The illegal invasion of Iraq based on mistakes at best and lies at worst, should be condemned.
GH: “People are free to follow their own destiny and their desires but they have to live within the moral strictures laid down by the majority...”
The moral tyranny of the majority? No thanks.
GH: “I don't deal in hypothetical questions...”
Addressing hypotheticals is one way to try and empathise with one’s fellow human beings, to view and experience the world through their eyes.
When one endorses or embarks upon a course of action empathy is the tool to try and understand the consequences of that action for one’s fellow human beings.
GH: “Human nature and behaviour is diverse, the phelps gang behaviour of crashing in to funerals..."
Here is another hypothetical. Imagine you are burying a loved one and the funeral was picketed by Christian-hating groups with signs indicating your loved one will burn in hell for eternity.
GH: “...can be dealt firmly by the family members involved who can make it clear to the phelps gang what they think about them...”
Given they are grieving they should not have to deal with Fred Phelps. Legislation should be passed enabling police to arrest this vile, reprehensible man if he pickets funerals.
Greg Hynes, do you think the behaviour of the Phelp’s gang should be outlawed or do you see it as a legitimate expression of freedom of speech?
GH: "...and this does not have to blown up by the media...”
Yes, it does. Their behaviour is of the most vile I have ever encountered and they should be hounded till they stop.
GH: “The vast majority of Christians are decent...”
Define decent.
GH: "the media concentration on the few only shows their agenda..."
Seems like a good agenda to me; to hound Phelps and his congregation until they stop their vile behaviour.
GH: “There are many gays whose public behaviour is despicable (Bob Brown etc)...”
Give some examples of Bob Brown’s despicable behaviour. Not just behaviour with which you do not agree but behaviour which is despicable - ie vile, morally reprehensible.
BTW, I notice you have not described the reverend Fred Phelps' behaviour as despicable, suggesting only that it should be condemned. Do you believe the Reverend Fred Phelps’ behaviour is vile and morally reprehensible? Do you believe it is despicable?
Who are the etceteras to whom you refer?
re: John Miner on Brogden's media and Cuming's case
James Govett, you wrote, "Public disapproval of homosexuality does not respect the dignity of homosexual human beings and encourages verbal and physical violence."
I would not think that should be the case. Not endorsing homosexuality should not be tied to verbal and physical violence which is due to ignorance, you can be disapproving of it without giving rise to violent behaviour.
You wrote, "The illegal invasion of Iraq based on mistakes at best and lies at worst, should be condemned."
I am not sure what the Iraq war has to do with this debate.
You wrote, "The moral tyranny of the majority? No thanks."
As opposed to the moral values of minority elite? The majority set the moral strictures in a society and what is acceptable or not and this is how democratic processes and societies function.
You wrote, "Legislation should be passed enabling police to arrest this vile, reprehensible man if he pickets funerals.
Greg Hynes, do you think the behaviour of the Phelp’s gang should be outlawed or do you see it as a legitimate expression of freedom of speech?"
As said before I don't deal in hypotheticals. The behaviour of the phelps gang is despicable, since this is the US I suppose they do have constitutional protection of rights and I dont think their behaviour needs to be banned through special legislation as long it does not go violent. If they dont have constitutional protection it is up to the local authorities to work it out through democratic process.
You wrote, "Yes, it does. Their behaviour is of the most vile I have ever encountered and they should be hounded till they stop."
Indecent and extremely gross behaviour it is, but get real... is it the vilest ever? Doubt it.
You wrote, "Give some examples of Bob Brown’s despicable behaviour. Not just behaviour with which you do not agree but behaviour which is despicable - ie vile, morally reprehensible."
What about his heckling of US President Bush during his official visit to Australia? It was deeply disgraceful, embarrasing the nation and it was telecast around the world. Bob brown is one of the hate filled politicians in Australia, he is morally bankrupt. Since he happens to be gay and many gays associate with extreme Left politics, would it be prudent to tar all of them with the same brush based on the select few who glow in media's attention?
re: John Miner on Brogden's media and Cuming's case
Greg Hynes, “Not endorsing [though I said publicly disapproving of] homosexuality should not be tied to verbal and physical violence which is due to ignorance….”
Unfortunately, it is.
But don’t worry, you have nothing to lose if you are wrong, do you?
Why do you publicly disapprove of homosexuality?
GH, “ I am not sure what the Iraq war has to do with this debate”.
You said, “….violence against any human being by another human being…[should be condemned]”
And, particularly in reference to the slaughter of our fellow human beings in Iraq, I agreed with you. Greg Hynes, I don’t know if you do this intentionally or not but you ask questions that clearly indicate you don’t read what you are responding to.
GH, “ As opposed to the moral values of minority elite?”
As opposed to fundamentalist Christians, for example, who want to control the behaviour of others.
GH, “ What about his heckling of US President Bush during his official visit to Australia? It was deeply disgraceful, embarrassing the nation and it was telecast around the world”.
You said his behaviour is despicable but you offer behaviour that you yourself describe as disgraceful and embarrassing. Give some examples of Senator Bob Brown’s behaviour that you consider despicable. Something as despicable as picketing funerals, for example.
GH, “Bob brown is one of the hate filled politicians in Australia….”
Who or what does he hate? Link to some story about Bob Brown that indicates he is hate-filled.
GH,”….he is morally bankrupt…..”.
Give some examples demonstrating Bob Brown is morally bankrupt.
GH, “Since he happens to be gay and many gays associate with extreme Left politics, would it be prudent to tar all of them with the same brush based on the select few who glow in media's attention?”
???
re: John Miner on Brogden's media and Cuming's case
Margo, many people will give many reasons for McTaggart's victory, especially with such a massive swing, but the Brogden factor was one of the largest.
However, to simplify the result in such manner is to denounce the many and varied reasons why people voted, essentially, against the Liberals.
Yes it was a by-election, and an unnecessary one at that - allegedly thanks to Clarke and Hawke - so 'local' issues come to the fore. Local issues in this case was the incompetence and arrogance of the NSW Liberal Party, plus the local campaign about Mona Vale Hospital.
However, there were other factors, which need to be considered. For example, my darling wife did not vote for the Liberals for the very first time, I believe, in this election.
Her educated reasoning being the above 'local' issues, but also a great disgust at the proposed IR legislation, and that the Federal Liberal party has spent AU$55 million of taxpayers money for their own propaganda on this issue. She is furious over this blatant misuse of public money.
Thus a staunch life-long Liberal voter, who has argued with me over politics for five long years, has suddenly switched sides, and deliberately voted against them.
Wonder what the pollsters and tipsters will make of that?
re: John Miner on Brogden's media and Cuming's case
Well, well, looks like voters in Pittwater saw through the political/media bad behaviour and didn't like it at all. Check out Loss not about IR, says Nelson: