Has Chavez inspired the Labor censors?

Help stop the News Media Gestapo

Here’s Alan Jones with Piers Akerman discussing our governing Marxists attempt to crack down on free speech.–as always, a pleasure to listen…..

Andrew Bolt:

Has Chavez inspired the Labor censors?

The Gillard Government and the Left seems to have been inspired by Chavez’s punishment of the “hate media”:


How much more inspiration can our Leftists here take from the great Chavez?

Five years ago a collective of our snowfield socialists – including the ABC’s Phillip Adams, Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon , propagandist John Pilger and Kevin Rudd’s nephew Van Thanh Rudd – begged Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez to come teach Australians a lesson:

Every country has its own traditions and culture and has to find its own solutions, but what Venezuela has been able to achieve in so little time will be a source of inspiration and ideas for many in Australia.

Since then this “source of inspiration and ideas” been teaching our closet totalitarians lots of lessons, such as how to shoot students, close down critical TV stations, arrest political opponents , create an energy crisis, unleash soaring inflation, stop inflation by arresting butchers and foster corruption.

Now the Gillard Government and the Left seems to have been inspired by Chavez’s punishment of the “hate media”: 

There are still brave reporters and opinion writers who dare to challenge the status quo (in Venezuela), despite the shrinking number of television and radio outlets. But they run great risks.

According to Alberto Jordán, a journalism professor at the Central University of Venezuela who once supported Mr. Chávez, many have paid dearly for doing their work. Mr. Jordán, a columnist for the Venezuelan daily El Universal, wrote recently that under chavismo there have been 300 government-orchestrated court cases against journalists.

In multiple cases—from reporting on drinking water contamination, the shortages of goods or anything that might cause “anxiety” among the population—reporters have been put on notice that they could be subject to criminal prosecution. There is nothing like the threat of doing time in a Venezuelan cell to focus a journalist’s mind on state-approved reporting.

How dare these new fascists suppress our free speech?

Former Minister David Kemp quotes a leader who’d seem radical today, when free speech is under such sustained attack from government:

There are fascist tendencies in all countries, a sort of latent tyranny. And they exist, be it remembered, in radical as well as in conservative quarters. Suppression of attack, which is based upon suppression of really free thought, is the instinctive weapon of the vested interest.

Robert Menzies, freedom fighter.

And who today are the new fascists?

While you ponder, here is the latest report from the front lines of Labor’s disgraceful, dangerous and shamelessly self-interested war against a free press:

LABOR whip Joel Fitzgibbon has stepped up calls for tough new curbs on the media… Mr Fitzgibbon dismissed the changes unveiled last week to update standards for journalists, insisting last night that the latest attempt at self-regulation proved the need for government action….

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has urged a “public interest test” for media proprietors that could put editorial standards at the heart of decisions to approve or reject mergers and acquisitions…

Caucus members have voiced stronger support for the Finkelstein proposals rather than the public interest test, partly out of anger at news coverage of the government.

Labor MPs including Doug Cameron, Steve Gibbons and John Murphy have called for stronger oversight of the media .. The Finkelstein plan would use statutory oversight of the print media for the first time to replace the Press Council with a news media council backed by government funding and legal powers.

Kemp warns the too-eager Press Council not to get too ahead of itself in cracking down on journalists:

On what possible basis can it be argued that any media organisation, let alone any individual participant in the media, should be subordinate to the views of the industry as a whole? What responsibility does any part of the media have to any other part of it, beyond the obligation to abide by general laws which apply to all? What right do some people have to regulate the views of others in a free society, even if they are in the same “industry”? What special insights into the truth do those few voices represented on the Press Council itself have, that allows them to attempt to regulate the free expression of anyone? The answer is, they have none.

The greatest service my old colleague, Robert Hill, and the others on Julian Disney’s new advisory committee to the Press Council can perform is to say that freedom of speech trumps all other issues.

From where comes this extraordinary new fear of mere words? This general conviction among the cultural elite that speech has become too free?

It seems to me vested interests are desperately trying to retain their power.

(No comments. And you’ll see a lot more such closures of debate if you don’t fight back.)

Put your money where your mouth is:

The post here last month on The Forbidden History of Unpopular People garnered a very enthusiastic response.

“It’s about arrogance, it’s about powerful people here in Australia who believe that they are smarter than you, that their opinion is worth more than your opinion, and that their thinking is better than your thinking, and if you think they’re wrong, you should just shut up.”

Help stop the News Media Gestapo

Topher is doing another Forbidden History video — just hours to go….   JoAnn Nova

One thought on “Has Chavez inspired the Labor censors?”

  1. The Leftist-Islamic Alliance against Freedom of Speech

    Here is a remarkable analysis of the phenomenon I discussed here: the increasingly thuggish and anti-free speech alliance between Leftists and Islamic supremacists. “The Leftist-Islamic Alliance against Freedom of Speech,” by Edward Cline in Accuracy In Media, July 16:

    Robert Spencer, a tireless defender of freedom and the freedom of speech against Islam, was attacked recently in the New York Daily News and charged with having “inspired” Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik to go on his killing spree in July 2011. The writer, Nathan Lean, in his July 9th column, “Expose the Islamophobia industry,” connects several other counter-jihadist writers with Breivik’s actions, and lumps them all together as “untouchables” who ought to be ostracized.
    The Islamophobia industry insists that it is not just a fringe minority who distort an otherwise peaceful faith. Instead, they point to the Koran and suggest that terrorists derive their world views from its messages. If that is so, these anti-Muslim agitators are guilty based on the logic of their own argument. After all, Breivik read and interpreted the writings of people like Spencer and [Pamela] Geller. He deciphered their diatribes much like Osama Bin Laden interpreted the Koran. Both men were compelled to act on the messages they digested.
    It is doubtful that Lean has cracked open a Koran, or has heard of the Hadith, or The Reliance of the Traveler. For if he had any solid knowledge of Islam and its principal texts, he would grasp that these works do indeed sanction the violence of Muslim terrorists. He would understand that Spencer has every right to be an “Islamophobe,” that is, someone who is fearful of Islam and especially of Sharia law. It is interesting to note that while Lean inveighs against Breivik, who murdered dozens of people, he does not mention the thousands of people killed by jihadists in virtually every country on earth. Moreover, he does not suggest that Breivik also was inspired by al-Qaida, in addition to a potpourri of other “Islamophobic” writers. About Spencer and his outspoken co-counter-jihadists, Lean concludes:

    Society has a responsibility to counter these individuals with overwhelming overtures of pluralism – and to systematically push the fear-mongers out of public discourse.
    Spencer replies:

    The claim that I “inspired” the Norway mass murderer Breivik because he cited me in his “manifesto” has become a staple of Leftist and Islamic supremacist polemic against people who are trying to defend freedom against Sharia. But it founders on the facts: never mentioned is the fact that Breivik cited many, many people, including Barack Obama, John F. Kennedy, and Thomas Jefferson — who are just three of the many who are never blamed for his murders.
    Also swept under the rug is the fact that whether he is sane or not, Breivik’s manifesto is actually quite ideologically incoherent — so far was he from being a doctrinaire counter-jihadist that he wanted to aid Hamas and ally with jihad groups.

    It probably has not escaped the notice of the more observant readers that the alliance of the Left and Islam reflects the same agitprop strategies, chief among is that when the Left’s or Islam’s policies fail, or produce disasters, or cause deaths, or provoke hostility among the electorate, blame for the failure is shifted elsewhere. When Obama’s policies produce the opposite of his alleged goals, he blames Bush, when in fact Obama’s policies are a continuation of Bush’s soft-pedaled socialism. The difference between Bush’s socialism and Obama’s is that Bush’s policies were founded on an ignorance of economics, or of reality; Obama’s policies are intended to negate economics and remake reality.

    When Muslims murder, torture, rape, go on rampages, or otherwise resort to violence anywhere in the world to enforce conformity to their ideology, their spokesmen in the West blame ”extremists.” But they never say that the “extremists” are wrong. The ideology is never at fault, only its finger-pointing “misunderstanders.”

    Thus, as Spencer points out in his Jihad Watch column, anyone who criticizes Islam is a “misunderstander” who spreads “lies” and “fabrications” and so on about the perils of Islam and can be quick-marched to the same camp with actual jihadists. Then a leap of logic is performed and Muslim violence can be blamed on criticism of Islam. The Left and Islamists “abhor” violence, express “regret” when violence occurs, and do not blame the perpetrators, but instead the “instigators” of the violence, that is, those who exercise their freedom of speech by pointing out the evils and fraud of Islam and the consistent violence its ideology encourages and promulgates. They cluck their tongues in public over the violence sanctioned by their ideology, but chastise anyone who says the violence is part and parcel of their ideology.

    They must be “pushed out of public discourse.” That is, shamed, humiliated, boycotted, mocked, picketed, and ultimately censored. The irony is that there is no “public discourse” about the nature of Islam and the crimes committed in its name. Nor does the Left and Islam wish there to be.

    It is six of one, half a dozen of another. The Left and Islam both promote collectivism and universal submission and subjugation to them. Of course they are allies. With the help of its Muslim occupiers, France recently elected a blatant socialist. Has anyone in this country heard a single Muslim speak out against Obamacare? Has any British Muslim spoken out against Britain’s welfare state? No? Why not? Because to oppose collectivism one must advocate individual rights. It is individual rights that the Left and Islam wish to extinguish. They say: Control private property, or expropriate it, and it is extinguished.

    In the fantasy universe of collectivists, violence is never the fault of the ideology, it is always the fault of anyone who resists submission to the ideology or criticizes it. For secular collectivists (or the Left), as with Islamists, the fundamental means to the end is force.

    Read it all.

Comments are closed.