James Paterson on Conroy’s media laws

This entry was posted in Freedom of speech, Sink the Fink. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to James Paterson on Conroy’s media laws

  1. JamesK

    Nothing the PM said yesterday was “welcome”.

    I listened and she quite clearly suggested no backdown of consequence on plans outlined as a “take or leave it” proposition of Citizen Conrade Conman last week.

    I don’t know why the medja breathlessly reports as a sign of possible compromise.

    It isn’t.

    Paterson should have squashed the presenter’s characterisation of it as such.

  2. Harold

    “Will the Bill end democracy?” is being asked by that Scottish union hack in the Sentate.

  3. johninoxley

    The scottish scumsucker and unions stuffed Great Britain. Now they are doing the same here. Send the ALP to Afganistan. They fit in well with the Taliban. Or should I say Taliband like Slime Minister.

  4. Ellen of Tasmania

    “Will the Bill end democracy?”

    My husband often asks people if there is any area of our lives over which the government should have no regulatory jurisdiction.

    If there ISN’T, then don’t we have a totalitarian government – there’s just areas where they choose to be active or remain passive (for the present)? If 51% of the population have voted for such a government, does that makes it okay?

  5. jupes

    “Will the Bill end democracy?”

    Quite possibly.

  6. Gab

    “Will the Bill end democracy?”

    yes the Scottish cur asked this question of Finkelstein, Ricketson and ex-Labor pollie McGinty. All said, no, impossible. That’s enough reason to be very afraid.

  7. henry

    Paterson looks directly into the camera and very rarely blinks when talking. It’s very successful. He draws us in to concentrate and listen.

  8. Harold

    Will the Bill erode democracy?

    Will the Bill promote democracy?

    No, will Armageddon eventuate from this Bill? If the answer is No you must support this Bill.

  9. Gab

    Will the Bill promote democracy?

    the fascist Cameron will never ask this question. The answer is all too obvious.

  10. James In Footscray

    Free speech just doesn’t capture the imagination of rebellious young people any more. The critics of media regulation are mainly stuffy old conservatives or Young Lib lookalikes. That’s really sad.

    Libertarians need to get young idealists fired up about this.

  11. Tapdog


    Will the Bill erode democracy?

    Will the Bill promote democracy?


    Doesn’t make sense. If it will neither promote nor erode democracy, then the status quo prevails and there is no need to enact any legislation. Less government and all that.

  12. John Mc

    will Armageddon eventuate from this Bill

    At some stage will the media be worried about saying something that could be in the public interest? If you answered ‘yes’ you need to oppose this bill.

  13. Poor Old Rafe

    “If 51% of the population have voted for such a government, does that makes it okay?”

    Nice one Ellen, trust the Tasmanians to come through on the big issues.

    No it does not, unless you think that the device that we use to roll over representative governments without resorting to violent revolution also constitutes the criterion of right and wrong.

    That is one of the most pressing questions of out time, given the way that the socialist parties around the world are targetting key constituencies to get 51% of the vote and hence take control of the nation.

    I have posted on this before and probably should recycle that post for another thread.

  14. Mark

    Is this bill necessary in any way?



  15. Poor Old Rafe

    Adding to the danger of majority rule.

    A dangerous extension of the theory of majority rule is the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty. This is the idea that any law that a majority of bodies in the House at the time happens to pass by a simple majority is OK, regardless of the written or unwritten rules or conventions in place before the vote and regardless of the previous system of rights and conventions that are violated in the process. The process may be complicated if there is an upper house where a majority is required as well, but the point is that the capacity for revolutionary and destructive legislation is always on the cards as long as the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty is widely accepted. For activist and interventionist politicians of course it is an huge temptation to abuse their power.

    Hence the importance of the Citizen’s Power of Veto where the party in power does not even represent a majority of the population.

  16. I got into a discussion over at the Tallyroom regarding the point of Upper houses – my position is that the value of an Upper House is completely held in the way that it differs to the lower house.

    Individual representation is actually not a significant requirement – that is already completely provided by a lower house.

    But an upper house provides some protection for a given minority through structural means. In the federal case – and now in WA, that protection is provided to regional areas /smaller states that would otherwise be subject to the densely populated urban areas / larger states.

    The house of Lords effectively provided (originally) protection for the interests of those who were paying the cost of government – a distinct lack in our current system and one that needs be restored.

  17. Louis Hissink

    Interesting to read that no one has defined “public interest” explicitly.

    As for democracy – that’s nothing but the rule of the majority and god help the minority.

    The fundamental right is that which involves an individual, and if this fundamental right is rejected, which it is by all political parties who use the phrase “human-rghts”, then support for the ALP’s media control regulation is quiet explicable, however abhorrent it is.

    But as long as the media and that includes the, so-called, conservative journalists use the phrase “human-rights”, then they really don’t understand the issues.

    Christianity with its emphasis on the solitary soul, seems to be the ultimate origin of this basic right of the individual to be free to live. It truly is Christianity versus the pagans again.

  18. Pedro

    I see the Fink has been before the Senate committee claiming that you don’t need evidence of media wrong doing to justify govt control, none of which he profers. He then goes to say that selfregulation has comprehensively failed. I suppose that is some cheek.

    I think the really important thing to note about a judge is that knowledge (we hope) of the law does not in anyway make one especially competent to comment on matters of public policy relating to the form of govt and public liberties.

    It was especially depressing because the Fink feels that any institution with great power needs to be regulated by the govt. The separation of powers is one of the ideas you get in pretty much your first suck of the law school teat.

  19. Dexter Rous

    Anyone heard Snuffles Conjob today on the noos?
    He sounds sort of wierd sort of quiet and slow; not the loud aggressive thug to which we’ve become so accoustomed.
    I’m wondering if the strain of the last or two has finaly caused him to….well….crack?

  20. Michael

    James Paterson – what a steaming pile of horseshit.

  21. Brian of Moorabbin

    It was especially depressing because the Fink feels that any institution with great power needs to be regulated by the govt. The separation of powers is one of the ideas you get in pretty much your first suck of the law school teat.

    Too true Pedro.

    Wonder what the Fink would say/feel about government intervention and regulation of the legal profession (ie: the setting of mandatory sentences, judges being elected by the people, etc)…

  22. south

    As long as this bill continues to weaken Conroy with a constant barrage of criticism, or make him look ever more incompetent and foolish, then it’s serving a useful purpose.

  23. Borisgodunov

    Referenda. referenda .referenda ,the peoples weapon to control everything ,politicians,lawyers,greedy capitalists and other Rubbish.
    No government without referenda! Politicians are the Servants of the People,judges are the Servants of the People,the PS are the Servants of the People.t Tax money Belongs to the People.
    Power to the People!

  24. Dianne

    The IPA (and yes I’m a subscriber) need to get out & do more of this. They are really kicking the government around at the moment. Tim Wilson the other day on Sky was devastating – I mean you can’t really argue with what they are saying.

    All day long, like a lot of people I talk to people – this is the first time in my working life, that business time is taken up chatting about the disaster that is the Gillard Govt – and no it isn’t just me ranting at everyone I see about it…I think the days of the dumb electorate are well & truly behind us – this has been the ONLY legacy (and in my view a good one) of the Gillard & Rudd experiments.

    People now give a shit! & they aren’t happy!

  25. Michael

    Is Comrade Cameron in the UK also threatening democracy??

  26. Dave of Cossack

    The problem with “sick” people, some Politicians, one does not know which way they are going to change tack to next.

    A few of the Independents have their own problems as changed their colours to suit their needs and not their constituents or in other words feather their own nest.

    Some Australians voted these clowns in and I hope they have seen the light or have inserted brains as this aint no lucky country any more.

  27. wreckage

    This was really impressive stuff. Measured, mature, calm.

    Keep this up, IPA.

  28. Johno

    The IPA is doing a great job with exposing the Liar’s totalitarian plans. Well done. Keep up the good work.

  29. Token

    I stand by the fact that Cameron’s abuse of parliamentary privilege to attack private citizens needs to be addressed before we change media laws:

    Were that not enough, we have also had to bear witness to the shameless leading questions being spoon-fed by the seemingly unreconstructed socialist Senator Doug Cameron to his comrade witnesses while at the same time suffer the wild accusations and conspiracy theories he spouts to his perceived enemies under parliamentary privilege.

    While there are many examples of Senator Cameron’s undergraduate gullibility – not least his constant confusion between Australian and UK press outlets – just one is enough to render Senator Cameron’s paranoid delusions in the light they deserve to be seen.

    But perhaps the darkest irony is that, in the coward’s castle of the Senate, Cameron is immune from the consequences arising from his smears and falsehoods. Out here in the real world the press has no such protection.

    And yet he and the one-eyed lynch mob that swallows every cliched accusation without question think we’re the ones whose words need to be controlled. It’s hard to believe that they’re not joking too.

    Pity the opposition did not call this loose cannon into line after his assault upon Alan Joyce last year. They have enabled his abusive ways.

  30. Sean M

    Wow, was this actually taped on a video recorder? How quaint.

  31. Louis Hissink

    Media laws killed – latest on news.com

Comments are closed.