The Council has received your letter of 23 March in which you press a
concern with an article published in the Cairns Post.
I note that you have sent me neither a completed complaint form, nor
a signed waiver. In the absence of those I cannot process your matter
as a complaint.
* You see, without filling out ‘a completed complaint form, and ‘without signing a waiver’ Jack Herman, the honorable representative of the press council of Australia, will not act.
Nice try Jack. Sign a waiver?
I think I smell a rat. Should I say it confirms my suspicions…?
I am also concerned with your comments and action in this matter. The
posting of comments on a public proposal â€“ such as the building of a
mosque â€“ on a publicly available medium, such as the Internet, places
your actions squarely in the public domain.
* No it doesn’t. The issue was about a mosque, not about me.
I thought I made that clear, right here:
I am not involved nor have I ever involved myself in a public campaign. I am a co-contributor of a website that exposes Islamic terror and atrocities, educates about Islamic jihad and the doctrine of Islam, which is a socio-political system in the guise of religion. I (like many others) provide news-feeds and comments. That’s all.
The article on the blog ‘winds of jihad’ never called for ‘holy war’ nor did it incite anyone to commit unlawful acts. The article ‘Stop the Mosque in Cairns ’ was a simple reaction to many Cairns residents’ objections. What was written in the blog reflected the sentiments of Cairns residents who would not get their objections heard otherwise.
You do not deny that you
have posted the comments attributed to you nor that they relate to
the public debate on the proposal to build the mosque. Your views on
the Islamic religion are not relevant to this question. If, as you
say, there are good reasons for your public stance, this is all the
more reason for you to identify yourself with it. The newspaper
article arose because you were a local identified with a prominent
campaign on a local issue.
* No need to confirm or deny anything:
You’re missing the point, Jack.
My views on Islam may not be relevant to you, Jack.
But they reflect the views of the majority of the population of Cairns. Those views were reflected in the posting on the winds of Jihad blog. The views of posters on the blog are not necessarily my own.
But as you correctly state: If my views are not relevant, then why should my person, my age,Â my property, my place of residence and my business be of such great interest that it must be printed in the paper to draw attention to and make me and my family a target to those who are obliged to assassinate me because of their religion?
Lets apply your logic, Jack:
If the Cairns Fish wrap prints an article on behalf of some residents, it would then be an automatic requirement that the chief-editor (Okay, lets not mention his name, not yet) comes out flag waving for their cause with Gavin King in tow? You’re having me on, right Jack?
You counter with the proposition that the newspaper editor is
anonymous because he doesn’t sign editorials. The editorial in the
newspaper is the collective view of the newspaper and is generally
not signed but is identified with the editor, whose name will appear
elsewhere in the newspaper, probably in the colophon.
* His name doesn’t appear Jack. It doesn’t. Nowhere!
But I like your story about the ‘collective view’ –
reminds me of Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm.’
How’s that? The Cairns fish wrap has a ‘collective view?’
You mean the Cairns Post is a collective?
As in commune? You don’t say!
Why am I not surprised?
You seriously telling me they have a ‘collective view?’
So you would agree that you and the editors of the Cairns fish wrap share collective guilt if some Islamic nutjob saws my head off..?
Well, come to think of it, collective guilt….
No, the name of the chief-editor ………….. does not appear anywhere. Certainly not in the paper.
Lets call him a faceless creep with a far left agenda.
No, he’s not in the telephone book either; it is as if he doesn’t exist.
Gavin King, your rabid reporter, the guy who tried to get me assassinated, is not listed either. Nowhere.
Why is that? If they have nothing to hide, why are they so afraid to let anyone know about their existence?
Further it now appears that you have widened your campaign to include
references on the website, not only to your opposition to the mosque
proposal but to an attack on the by-lined journalist. You suggested
in your original letter that you feared for your safety and that of
your family as a result of the Post article. Yet you have indicated
no analogous consideration for the safety of the journalist whose
image and details you have published on the web. Instead of seeking
to find a resolution to your concerns with the newspaper, through the
Council, by completion of the waiver and the complaint form, you have
sought a form of revenge on the journalist.
* Wow: ‘I have widened my campaign’- well Jack, did you expect me to lie down and die?
Too bad, Jack:
So in your view (with respect) it is wrong for me to defend myself against hateful left wing lunatics? Should I not expose them and their vile and insidious agenda?
You seem to have a problem with that:
“You have sought a form of revenge on the journalist- and you have indicated no analogous consideration for the safety of the journalist whose
Image and details you have published on the web”-
* Jack, you accuse me? Do you speak French?
“Cet animal est tres mechant; quand on l’attaque, il se defend”
(”This animal is very wicked; when you attack it, it defends itself”)
One of our readers sent this in:
Exactly how is publishing a photo and email address of a journalist which is at the top of his column – the same as publishing the details of an anonymous blogger? And how is there equal chances of violence from the Mohammadeans than from anti-Mohammadean writers? What sort of detached world do these people live in?
* Right. The resident whack-jobs from the Cairns fish wrap can smear me in the vilest way, can damage me personally, my business, put my family and myself in mortal danger, but I, yes I-, should have ‘analogous consideration for the safety of the journalist who’s details I have published on the web’-
Glad I didn’t sign your waiver, Jack. Your response confirms that it would have been a mistake.
Let me tell you, Jack; What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Gavin King and his supporting editor knew what they were doing. They had a choice. They were up to no good and I’m not going to concern myself with ‘their safety’-
Besides: When was the last time you heard of an Australian journalist having his head chopped off with a rusty knife in front of a camera because he put a fellow Australian’s life in danger? A rather uncommon scenario.
But doesn’t every man and his dog know by now that Muhammedans kill for their religion?
No, Jack. Do not fear for Gavin King.
Nobody will harm him, but perhaps nobody will trust him either. Not anymore. Some people might spit on him, some people might call him a traitor. Some might not invite him any more. Some might give him the finger and some might give him a shoe in the ass.
Does that worry you, Jack?
Gavin King brought it onto himself. Whether he is driven by extreme malice, envy or some other obsession doesn’t matter, the damage is done.
All he can lose is his pathetic job. Its not very much, is it?
But as long as you’re protecting him he won’t have to worry, right Jack?
The matter is now definitely beyond the capacity of the Press Council
to deal with. It has become a matter for the appropriate civil
authorities. I have closed the file on the matter.
Jack R Herman
* Right Jack: Put it in the ‘too hard’ box… Goodbye!