Last week was a tough one for Malcolm Trumble, President of Australia. But this week will be even worse, with the PM now facing three critical problems. On the right, Senator Cory Bernardi is about to quit the Liberal Party. On the left, moderate MPs are pushing for a parliamentary vote on same-sex marriage, forcing the PM to block a change that he himself supports. And hanging over his head are the government’s awful polling numbers from this morning’s first Newspoll of the year.
Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump has moved swiftly to remove the stench created by Australian Senator Cory Bernardi’s endorsement, saying he had no prior knowledge of the South Australian’s backing.
“I have standards,” Mr Trump said in a carefully-worded statement today. “This is not the type of company I want to keep – I have an image to maintain here. People are free to make endorsements, but that doesn’t mean I have to accept them”.
The Trump camp is acutely aware that an association with someone as ridiculous as Cory Bernardi is not a good look. At this late stage in the campaign, image-management is everything.
Political commentator John Scotchmore said candidates were often judged by the people they associated with. “Trump supporters are willing to go along with some pretty crazy ideas, but there are limits,” he said, adding it was a ‘smart move’ by Trump HQ to move so decisively on the matter.
Trump is not merely ignorant. He is also supremely confident and feels superior — the most dangerous kind of idiot
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull says he has reached an in-principle agreement that would see Cory Bernardi drop his 18C private member’s bill, but still allow the South Australian senator to be a total knob on an ongoing basis.
Mr Turnbull said that after a day of intense negotiation he was happy with the outcome. “I think this is a sensible concession. I get to look like a leader and Cory can keep being a bigot. It’s a win-win”.
Mr Bernardi also said he was comfortable with the arrangement. “18C has significantly restricted my ability to be a dick, so I welcome this relaxing of the law,” Bernardi said. He used the opportunity to remind reporters that he was the only Australian thinking about the fact that allowing gay marriage would lead to sex with animals.
Saturday 20 August 2016 There are no two better politicians at feigning indignation than Peter Dutton and “the mouth that roared” Christopher Pyne. Though it has to be conceded with Christopher that he rather enjoys his notoriety. Even being called the most hated politician in Australia seems to give him some sordid sense of self-satisfaction. Unfortunately…
Source: Day to Day Politics: The problem with Policeman Peter. – » The Australian Independent Media Network
Front man for the far right conservatives, Cory Bernardi is a strong advocate for freedom of speech – for some. On his questionably named blog “Common sense lives here”, Bernardi decried the “insidious” progress of debate around marriage equality and LGBTI issues, describing it as “Orwellian…a cynical manipulation of language for the purpose of oppression.”…
Source: Freedom of speech the Bernardi way – » The Australian Independent Media Network
Today the Federal Government announced that it will send South Australian senator Cory Bernardi on a 3-month secondment to the United Nations.
It’s a well-deserved appointment – acknowledgement for Bernardi’s recent work on diversity, inclusion and fairness – all principles the UN holds dear.
But in his rush to approve the appointment, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has overlooked one important consideration: who is going to make sure we don’t all have sex with donkeys while Mr Bernardi is away?
Since Mr Bernardi joined parliament in 2006, the incidence of bestiality in this country has been almost non-existent. He has worked tirelessly to ensure donkey sex – and dog, cat and rabbit sex – stays on the public agenda, but off the minds of young, impressionable teenagers. Particularly gays.
It’s a difficult, often thankless task, but one that is absolutely vital. You should not take for granted that even when you’re not thinking about having sex with an animal, Mr Bernardi is, on your behalf. For that he deserves our praise.
But with the Senator out of the country for three months, things could change, and quickly. When a mother turns away, children are inclined to play up. And in the same way, when Mr Bernardi leaves our shores, we will likely give in to the temptation to roger a cow. Or worse, legalise same sex marriage.
It is, as the Senator himself has said, a slippery slope. One minute we’re booked to take the family away on a cheap and cheerful farm-stay holiday, the next it’s been redefined as a romantic weekend away for one.
We need Mr Bernardi to keep an eye on us, and to guide us in the right direction. We urge Mr Turnbull to re-think his decision.
Facebook launched its new range of ‘Reactions’ around the world today, giving people the chance to label a post as ‘Sad’, ‘Wow’ or ‘Fucking Crazy’.
“Nothing says ‘Love’ like a heart, and nothing says ‘Fucking Crazy’ like a picture of Cory Bernardi’s little head,” a spokesperson for Facebook said today.
Facebook also revealed a number of Reactions that didn’t make the cut, including ‘Embarrassing’, ‘(Cough, cough!), ‘This doesn’t add up??’, and ‘Cute!!”
Money raised from halal certification passes through a network of intricate pathways in South Australian Senator Cory Bernardi’s brain, before re-appearing weeks later as a fully-formed conspiracy theory.
That’s the finding of a Senate enquiry, established at the urging of Mr Bernardi, to analyse the link between the two activities.
Experts presenting evidence at the enquiry said they spent weeks tracing the flow of information through Mr Bernardi’s brain.
“We found that it starts its journey in what on the surface is a relatively rational part of the Senator’s mind. But it then travels through what we call the Paranois Vortex, a secretive, shadowy section of the brain, before finally resurfacing via Mr Bernardi’s mouth as a crazy terrorist plot. It’s a very complex process. I’m not even sure Mr Bernardi understands what’s going on,” the lead researcher said.
Mr Bernardi was unavailable for comment.
French comedian Dieudonné has just been charged as an ‘apologist for terrorism’ for his Facebook posting ‘Je me sens Charlie Coulibaly’ (I feel I am Charlie Coulibaly)
Recent commentary about the so-called “French” idea of free speech is fuelling confusion and misinformation in the debate about Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 in Australia.
Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson has said that a publication like French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo, target of last week’s terrorist attack, would be “shut down” in Australia under Section 18C. New South Wales Solicitor-General Michael Sexton has written that:
… those who say they are Charlie should support changes to 18C.
Wilson and Sexton join the likes of News Corp columnist Andrew Bolt and Liberal senator Cory Bernardi, who have similarly argued that publications such as Hebdo wouldn’t be permitted because of Section 18C.
There is at least some truth to these claims. A publication like Charlie Hebdo wouldn’t survive in Australia – not because of 18C – but because two major corporations dominate our mainstream media. We simply don’t have the same plurality of the press as they do in France. Anyone who has travelled in France would know of the diversity of French print media – with an impressive total of some 15,000 titles – which operates largely thanks to generous government subsidies.
As for Section 18C, hate speech is subject to much stricter regulations in France (under both civil and criminal law) than in Australia.
In July last year, for example, Front National politician Anne-Sophie Leclère was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment and fined 50,000 euros for comparing Attorney-General Christiane Taubira (who is black) to a monkey on her Facebook page. The criminal penalties imposed on Leclère seemed to pass without uproar or outrage. What did arouse public debate for going “too far” was the court’s decision to impose an additional fine of 30,000 euros on Front National.
Recall also French comedian Dieudonné, whose shows were banned last year because of his controversial quenelle gesture (an upside-down Nazi salute). His latest arrest came just 48 hours after the massive march in Paris in support of freedom of expression. His Facebook post, “Tonight, as far as I’m concerned, I feel like Charlie Coulibaly” – linking one of the Charlie Hebdo killers to the tribute “Je suis Charlie” – reportedly prompted the charge of being an “apologist for terrorism”.
Dieudonné has been the subject of numerous court proceedings. In February 2014, a French judge found him guilty of incitement of ethnic or racial hatred and denial of crimes against humanity over videos on his YouTube account. In October 2009, Dieudonné was fined 10,000 euros for “public insult of people of Jewish faith or origin”. The following year he was again forced to pay 10,000 euros, after the International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism brought defamation proceedings. In February 2007, a French court found his remarks in an interview printed in Lyon Capitale to be offensive and hence a necessary restriction on the freedom of speech.
It is worth noting that these were criminal penalties, not civil as with Section 18C. The point is that the portrayal of the French legal system put forward by some conservative commentators is simplistic and misleading. So too is the portrayal of Section 18C as draconian.
In France, freedom of expression has been protected since the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citzen of 1789. Also, as in other liberal democracies, the right to free speech is not absolute, but must be balanced against other competing rights with reference to the circumstances of each case. Hence the Law on the Freedom of the Press of 29 July 1981, which offers protections from racist and defamatory declarations, anti-terrorism legislation, Holocaust denial and insult and incitement to discrimination, hate or violence against individuals.
Charlie Hebdo itself has a chequered history of legal proceedings. French media report nearly 50 court cases, or one every six months. These include criminal proceedings brought in 2007 against then editor Philippe Val by the Grand Mosque of Paris. Val was acquitted. As in this 2007 court case, Charlie Hebdo won the majority of these decisions not due to freedom of speech tout court, but thanks to the protections on caricature, droit a la caricature.
It is also worth recalling that the case that fuelled opposition to Section 18C, Eatock v. Bolt, concerned printed articles – not cartoons or caricature. Section 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act includes various exceptions, including for fair comment, artistic work and performance. In the Bolt case, the judge found against fair comment in the public interest because the articles contained significant factual errors.
Australia, unlike France and other democracies, has only an implied right to freedom of speech on political affairs in the constitution. Those with genuine concerns about lack of free speech protections in Australia would do better to campaign for a bill of rights rather than pursue misdirected battles against Section 18C.
When the anti-18C campaign does not extend to other legislated restrictions – for example, section 578C of the Crimes Act, which includes publication of offensive or indecent articles, or section 35P of the ASIO Act – there is good reason to be cynical. When couched in terms of one’s “right to be a bigot”, even more so.
What conservative commentators don’t seem to understand is that they are not Charlie Hebdo; such a comparison is laughable. It is a satirical left-wing magazine that makes fun of all religions, political parties and themselves.
More importantly, Charlie Hebdo is part of France’s rich comic culture. Accordingly, its articles and cartoons must be understood in terms of parody, satire and, above all, with reference to political and cultural context.
This last point seems to have been missed entirely in the debate on Charlie Hebdo in Australia. Other things that are missing include reference to actual legislation and court proceedings.
A debate on reforming Section 18C should be informed by research and reason, not ideological cheap shots.
olddogthoughts 
You must be logged in to post a comment.