Who is Mark Leibler throwing to the wolves?

The outrage committed against Andrew Bolt under S18C of the RDA mobilised pro-free speech opinion in Australia. It highlighted some extreme illiberal and anti-free speech laws on the books that were introduced in the mid-1990s. While the then Liberal opposition put up something of a damp squib compromise, even they quickly realised that their own base was incensed. The leadership of the Jewish community (or at least Jewish community organisations) have been slow to come to this realisation. This was shaping up to be the end of a beautiful friendship – it still might.

Andrew Bolt has been particularly upset by the hypocrisy.

I have been particularly disappointed to be treated as collateral damage by Jewish community leaders and political players who have been demanding these illiberal laws be kept. Several have privately assured me they found the case against me a misapplication of the law or even an injustice. But not one publicly said so.

Well Mark Leibler of the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council has written to Andrew Bolt – but again only providing private assurance – although he is happy for the letter to be republished on his blog.

I have no problem about the views which I have communicated in this letter being made public. If you so desire, feel free to publish this letter on your blog.

Wow. Really? I would have though that the same letter published in the Jewish News or on the op-ed page of The Australian would be far more powerful; that would be a show of public support.

So here is the story. First Leibler throws Judge Mordecai Bromberg to the wolves:

… there is a respectable legal argument that in fact the judge misapplied the relevant test in your case.

So we have a bad law on our hands? Or a judge who wouldn’t apply the law? Or both? Regrettably Leibler doesn’t explore this point. Given his continued support for 18C, I suspect this is a criticism of Bromberg.

Then Leibler has a go at Ron Merkel:

I also agree that the analogy used by the barrister in your case was absolutely misconceived and outrageous. Moreover, I have communicated this to him and others and this is no secret.

Good. Yet the operative word here is “secret”. Who knew? Perhaps this criticism was reported in the media – I haven’t seen it.

Then Leibler throws Daniel Meyerowitz-Katz to the wolves.

You are, of course, entitled to disagree with the views of Daniel Meyerowitz-Katz recently published in The Australian. However, to suggest that this article in some way sanctions the ”vilification of people” like yourself or amounts to “publicly insulting” you is, frankly, impossible for me to comprehend.

Let’s go to the tape. What did Meyerowitz-Katz say?

If people genuinely think it should be legal for Australians to harass others on the basis of race, then they are welcome to make that argument. What’s troubling about the anti-18C campaign is its dishonesty.

But then, being honest about 18C makes it harder to spin the provision as a threat to free speech, and nobody wants to openly defend racial harassment. Do they?

Yep – reads like he is saying that anyone opposed to 18C is a racist. Frankly, it’s impossible for me to comprehend how that’s publicly insulting too.

The bottom line:

Andrew, I will maintain – and responsible Jewish community organisations will maintain – opposition to the wholesale repeal of S.l8C of the Racial Discrimination Act. This is not in any way directed at you. It ought not to be regarded as damaging to you and it is certainly neither offensive to you or intended to be offensive to you.

But for the small matter of a court judgement and being described as “some sort of neo-Nazi planning a holocaust” this isn’t about Andrew Bolt at all.

To be fair to Mark Leibler, friends can agree to disagree and this is how he sees the issue. Friends who agree 99 per cent of the time work on the 99 per cent and work around the 1 per cent. I can’t see this as a 1 per cent issue. This is a fork in the road. Those who choose to walk down the path of 18C must do so alone, without the comfort and friendship of those of us who choose freedom over slavery.

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

66 Responses to Who is Mark Leibler throwing to the wolves?

  1. blogstrop

    Good work Sinclair. It’s not an issue to be approached half-heartedly.

  2. Rabz

    This is a fork in the road. Those who choose to walk down the path of 18C must do so alone, without the comfort and friendship of those of us who choose freedom over slavery.

    Wise words, well stated.

    18c is obscenity, but then I’d argue the entire act and its loathsome supporting apparatus is as well.

    As they say in the classics (and I paraphrase) we need to “get medieval on their flabby arses”*.

    *NaDT.

  3. Robbo

    Friends who agree 99 per cent of the time work on the 99 per cent and work around the 1 per cent. I can’t see this as a 1 per cent issue. This is a fork in the road. Those who choose to walk down the path of 18C must do so alone, without the comfort and friendship of those of us who choose freedom over slavery.

    I totally agree with you and these spokesmen for the Jewish community needs to understand that there cannot be qualification to the right to freedom of speech. Freedom means exactly that, not a sort of freedom where you cannot say some things about us that we find distasteful. The three great freedoms, freedom of religion, association and speech, are precious and need constant protection. Wars have been fought to protect all or some of those freedoms and I remind the Jewish community that a lot of people who need not have bothered fought in a world war to free them and from which they have since benefited. Nobody is asking for anything in return other than that they also stand firm in defence of those freedoms.

  4. Abraham

    I remind the Jewish community that a lot of people who need not have bothered fought in a world war to free them and from which they have since benefited. Nobody is asking for anything in return other than that they also stand firm in defence of those freedoms.

    Excellent remark …

  5. [Thread derailment comment deleted. Sinc]

  6. entropy

    But then, being honest about 18C makes it harder to spin the provision as a threat to free speech, and nobody wants to openly defend racial harassment. Do they?

    Yep – reads like he is saying that anyone opposed to 18C is a racist. Frankly, it’s impossible for me to comprehend how that’s publicly insulting too.

    Good point: the charge of “racism” is losing its sting when you have clowns like this using it as a vehicle to shut down debate.

  7. entropy

    Oh, you were being sarcastic? No need.

  8. Okay then, I’ll try again.

    Those who chose to walk down the path of 18C must do so alone, without the comfort and friendship of those of us who chose freedom over slavery.

    Rejecting the Jewish community on the basis of their strong desire not to be persecuted seems to me to be an imprudent decision by the right. If there is any culture which should be listened to on the topic of racial respect, it is the Jewish people. Shunning them is not the answer.

  9. Tapdog

    Important discussion. Please do not allow it to be derailed.

    Where can I find a succint outline of the case against 18c?

    In particular I am interested in fleshing out my understanding of the ways in which it interacts with or duplicated the function of other legislation in the area of libel and incitement to racial hatred and whether or not those laws also are held to be obnoxious by libertarians.

  10. Token

    Rejecting the Jewish community on the basis of their strong desire not to be persecuted…

    That is very sleazy M0nty, on par with your disgraceful statement about Rafe “white-washing” history.

    No one is “rejecting” the Jewish community. Quite the contrary, the challenge is being placed to the Jewish community to finally stand up and provide support to a man who has historically stood up for the Jewish community.

  11. Sinclair Davidson

    If there is any culture which should be listened to on the topic of racial respect, it is the Jewish people.

    Indeed. Here we learn what happens when you place your trust in government.

    Then a new king, to whom Joseph meant nothing, came to power in Egypt. “Look,” he said to his people, “the Israelites have become far too numerous for us. Come, we must deal shrewdly with them or they will become even more numerous and, if war breaks out, will join our enemies, fight against us and leave the country.”

    So they put slave masters over them to oppress them with forced labor, and they built Pithom and Rameses as store cities for Pharaoh.

    As Token says, nobody wants to shun the Jewish community. We want to help our Jewish friends fight the statists and anti-Semites who hate them so much. Only free citizens can fight.

  12. Louis Hissink

    Perhaps people should read Shlomo Sands’ book “The Invention of the Jewish People”.

    Sands’ argument was that there was no Jewish race per se, but that people who identify as Jewish do so as adherents of the religion of Judaism. Other monotheistic religions are Christianity and Islam.

    The distinguishing feature of monotheistic religion is the existence of a monopoly of authority, hence why monotheistic religions are also proselytising religions. Monopolists in all spheres of human activity, whether material or spiritual, do not like competition.

    The book is available on Kindle.

    Please read it first to avoid having to eat your foot ware.

  13. As Token says, nobody wants to shun the Jewish community.

    You said they were going to walk alone! That sounds like you’re not walking with them, i.e. shunning them.

  14. Sinclair Davidson

    That sounds like you’re not walking with them, i.e. shunning them.

    au contraire – those individuals who choose to retain and support s18C are shunning us.

  15. au contraire – those individuals who choose to retain and support s18C are shunning us.

    They are quite happy to walk with you, since you both agree on 99% of things as you say. You are the one making the decision not to walk with them due to a 1% issue.

  16. nic

    An excellent post Sinclair, well written and expressed. To be frank, the kinds of people who are likely to attack Jews for simply being Jews, aren’t likely to be scared or affected by S.l8C. S.l8C is something that, as has transpired with the Bolt case, is a mechanism used for socio-political reasons as opposed to any real efforts to ‘protect’ groups such as Jews. The unmentioned issue is exactly where attacks on Jews would emenate from and by whom? Perhaps our wider community would be better off discussing some of these ‘truths’.

  17. nic

    Rejecting the Jewish community on the basis of their strong desire not to be persecuted seems to me to be an imprudent decision by the right. If there is any culture which should be listened to on the topic of racial respect, it is the Jewish people. Shunning them is not the answer.

    In terms of the issues Jews face, real examples of hate or racism, please tell me how S.18c helps.

  18. pete m

    monty – wrong way round. It is a 99% issue. If you deny my freedom of speech, you are not walking with me. If you believe you need this law to protect you from persecution, then you are dreaming.

    It is already unlawful to discriminate on the basis of religion or race.

    It is already unlawful to do criminal acts.

    It is already unlawful to victimize and harass people in the workplace.

    This RDA 18C is solely about upsetting someone. That is not persecution. It is empowering the state over the individual to abide their views and ideas. You really need to think about this a little more.

  19. Abraham

    You are the one making the decision not to walk with them due to a 1% issue.

    If the 1% entails a life of subjugation and serfdom then those who desire such enslavement will walk alone.

  20. Des Deskperson

    The problem for the Jewish Community is the assumption that s 18C will be interpreted and applied fairly and objectively by the human rights industry and the courts.

    It’s a dangerous assumption. I’ve had dealings with the Australian Human Rights Commission over industrial and workplace rights issues and their definition of ‘victim’ tends to be driven by current ‘progressive’ fads. Thanks to the marginal jottings of the now Governor -General, we know, for example, that the sex discrimination area of the Commission used to sneer at male complainants and probably still does. In my personal experience, the ‘victim’ whose rights had to be protected was invariably the slacker, the trouble-maker or the mentally disturbed.

    If anti-Semitism were to become increasingly fashionable among ‘progressives’ – driven, perhaps by an Islamist lobby with enough resources to portray itself as underdogs and victims – then I wouldn’t trust the Commission, or for that matter the judiciary, to always protect the Jewish community from incitement to racial hatred under s 18c. More broadly. Jews tend to be thrifty, hard working and prosperous. The Commission, at least in my experience, tends to take the side of the feckless and the incompetent.

  21. Token

    They are quite happy to walk with you, since you both agree on 99% of things as you say.

    Leibler is being bold saying he agrees 99% of the time with Bolt.

    Given this, in the time since that occured Bolt has stood up for the Jewish community on a number of issues.

    It was Bolt, Blair and a few others who gave publicity to the campaign against the nasty BDS sanctions.

    Bolt used his show and columns to make a lot more people aware of the type of statements and actions the BDS people pushed. He has highlighted the way the greens have provided support to the worst of the islamic community who were found on an “open day” to the public to have copies of the Elders of Zion at their mosque.

    By constrast, it is stunning that leaders of the Jewish community like Liebler have collectively kept their mouths shut in public for how long about the disgraceful slurs Merkel made in court (which Justice Bromberg allowed to be aired) about Bolt.

  22. lotocoti

    Doesn’t, or perhaps shouldn’t 18D pull the fangs of 18C?

  23. nic

    He has highlighted the way the greens have provided support to the worst of the islamic community who were found on an “open day” to the public to have copies of the Elders of Zion at their mosque.

    In the last week there was a murder at a Melbourne Mosque, with the perpetrator asking worshippers if they were ‘yehudi’ (Jews). S.18c makes the intelligensia feel smug, but they are punishing the wrong people.

  24. Sinclair Davidson

    You are the one making the decision not to walk with them due to a 1% issue.

    I think you are being wilfully stupid. I specifically said this is not a 1% issue but rather a fork in the road.

  25. What does it mean in practice, Sinclair? Are you not going to treat Jewish people who support Leibler as your friends any more? Move away from rhetoric and tell me what tangible effects your stance will have.

  26. Max

    This all makes sense if you read and understand the Talmud and the status of Gentiles therein.

  27. Empire Strikes Back

    Doesn’t, or perhaps shouldn’t 18D pull the fangs of 18C?

    Well, not according to case law.

    I have not been satisfied that the conduct is exempted from unlawfulness by s 18D. The reasons for that conclusion have to do with the manner in which the articles were written, including that they contained erroneous facts, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language and that as a result, the conduct of Mr Bolt and HWT is not justified in the manner required by s 18D of the RDA.

    You can read the full judgment here .

  28. Token

    Max, people can read the bible and find statements which no longer make sense as well. Your observation does not facilitate the discussion in any way.

  29. Sinclair Davidson

    m0nty – I’m making a very simple point here.

  30. Tom

    Sinc, you can’t reason with pond scum amoeba. It is only capable only of reacting to positive stimuli from “our side” and negative stimuli from “their side”. Positive stimuli from “our side” feels good and that’s all that matters to the ever whirling pond scum amoeba.

  31. Sinclair, you’re making a simple point by using a simple fallacy: if you’re not with me, you’re agin me. It doesn’t have to be like that. Absolutism is not always the best course of action.

  32. Sinclair Davidson

    if you’re not with me, you’re agin me. It doesn’t have to be like that.

    Indeed it doesn’t. But tell that to those who choose a different path. We mourn the departure of our friends and urge them to re-consider.

  33. Max

    He is a gentile receiving gentile treatment as per the Talmud it is clearly and directly applicable.

  34. Jazza

    Very well said, but nothing is going to give Andrew Bolt comfort as he has had to stand in the dock and hear his character trashed,meanwhile his loved ones stood by feeling helpless.
    However, I’m sure he would agree that nobody else should ever again be charged under such a heinous law–I’ll be glad to see Brandis repeal it and SOON!
    The luvvies with thin skins can use the same weapons against any personal nastiness as used against them–words in the social media etc, but there is also a law against slander, so ,with proof , really wrong charges can be refuted and the victim compensated.
    The Jewish community will find Andrew Bolt’s support is sincere and this law, extant or extinct ,makes no difference to his principles,a firm basic one of which is that this country’s people should not be divided by race, religion or anything else when we are all Australians–one reason I admire him.

  35. james

    Mark and those like him indeed have to make a choice.

    Are they a part of THEIR community or are they willing to be members of OUR community.

    Do they see their fellow citizens as brothers and sisters or barely restrained beasts in need of whips and chains to prevent them from organising pogroms?

    World war 2 was quite a while ago and Australians fought on the good side. It might just be time for the Jewish community in Australia to recognize this and give us goyim enough of the benefit of the doubt to allow us free speech.

  36. Pedro

    Saying a judge might be wrong is not throwing them to the wolves. Judges are wrong often enough, it’s why we have appeals. I think Liebler was correct about M-K as well. He didn’t call Bolt a racist (at least not in that passage), he said Bolt supports racial vilification being legal. I support that, but I’m not a racist. I just think somethings that are awful still shouldn’t be crimes because worse things flow from the constraint on free speech than occur if the odd deadshit is a loudmouth racist.

    You’ll notice that all the real shitholes now and through history trashed the important civil rights, not just the pissant stuff like 18C.

  37. Robert Blair

    Those who choose to walk down the path of 18C must do so alone

    It seems Monty’s outrageous racism has escaped comment.

    Sinc is saying that those individuals who use their free will to decide to support 18C “must do so alone” (without Sinc, one assumes, not literally alone).

    One also assumes that if I (a non-Jew) choose to support 18C then Sinc is suggesting that I “walk alone”. He is saying explicitly that anyone, regardless of race, who chooses to support 18C will get this “walk alone” treatment.

    So Monty says that Sinc is “rejecting the Jewish community”?

    In your world Monty, are Jews not individuals who can make up their own mind? They must support 18C because it is somehow baked into their little Jewish geneticals?

    It is this sort of casual racism that I cannot relate to. It is racist, tribalist, communitarian, anti-individualism and fundamentally opposed to freedom. Because without free will, there is no freedom.

  38. Robbo

    “World war 2 was quite a while ago and Australians fought on the good side. It might just be time for the Jewish community in Australia to recognize this and give us goyim enough of the benefit of the doubt to allow us free speech.”

    Precisely.

  39. Paul

    The best part was St. Bolt doing the “after all I’ve done for you” routine. No good tilting against single-issue people Andrew.

  40. I’m a fervent pro-Semite. I will cheerfully savage anyone who attacks Jewish people for their Jewishness. I am also an equal-opportunity savager, which means that being gay, or Muslim, or Aboriginal, will NOT save you from a savaging if you start on the Jews in my hearing.

    I am equally fervent in my desire to have Section 18C repealed, because it’s unjust and can be unjustly applied. This is not a hypothesis or a maybe-situation; it actually happened, and I was appalled, and I helped to pay for the petition in the Australian protesting against this.

    So I won’t be changing my stance on the anti-Semitism thing, but I will just keep pushing for this repeal, regardless of what some individuals who claim to represent ‘the Jewish community’ are saying.

  41. I think you are being wilfully stupid. I specifically said this is not a 1% issue but rather a fork in the road.

    Oh Sinc, Monty’s not wilfully stupid …

    [tee hee]

  42. Rafe

    Beautifully said Sinc.
    Trust Monty to miss the point.

  43. Token

    The best part was St. Bolt doing the “after all I’ve done for you” routine. No good tilting against single-issue people Andrew.

    Interesting view point. I was introduced to the very evocative poem by Pastor Niemoller in my first year of university at Monash as Jewish students raised awareness of the environment that enabled the Holocaust to heppen.

    Interesting that when a bad law is used to attack one of the few intellectuals that has not be slothful in his defense of Jewish people in Australia and Israel the leaders of the Jewish community “did not speak out…”

    “First they came …” is a famous statement and provocative poem attributed to pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the sloth of German intellectuals following the Nazis’ rise to power and the subsequent purging of their chosen targets, group after group

  44. Max

    will NOT save you from a savaging if you start on the Jews in my hearing

    And u will find that when push comes to shove you would receive the same treatment as Bolt.

  45. tomix

    So ole s18c sat around smoking cheap cigars from 1995 to 2010.
    Then “conservative” Andrew Bolt publishes gratuitous comments that no one is interested in.
    So a precedent is now in place thanks to Bolt.
    And the support of an organization representing a tiny minority is crucial for repeal?

    Ole s18c will be bathing in Dom any day now.

  46. manalive

    I’m convinced the stance of some in the Jewish community goes back to Jones v Toben (2003); for those who don’t remember one Fredrick Toben ran a particularly virulent Holocaust-denial website and was successfully prosecuted under Section 18C.
    Holocaust denial is better combatted by education, for instance the US Holocaust Memorial Museum or the Yad Vashem – World Center for Holocaust Research.

  47. Yohan

    Of course Jewish groups and organizations are not going to attack the RDA or Andrew Bolt’s adverse court judgement.They themselves are the ones who promote the ideology of political correctness and using state power to attack their enemies using the tools of racial discrimination law.

    Persecuting holocaust deniers, banning Hogan’s Heroes style comical nazi groups, running lefty academics out of their jobs if they criticize Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, and on and on.

  48. james

    It is sad to see A Bolt surprised that his friends in the Jewish community are not willing to stand by him despite his long standing support for Israel and opposition to anti Jewish crazies.

    Ultimately in Australia some of the biggest and most influential supporters of laws to restrict free speech have come from the diaspora community, seemingly out of a paranoid fear that allowing the gullible to hear the fantasies of the conspiracy theorists will stampede the dull eyed goyim masses into electing a new Hitler.

    This paranoia is alienating the community from some of its most fervent supporters. Far too many seem to have maintained a mentality where only socialists can be trusted to protect Jewish communities despite big state advocates now being some of the most hate filled enemies of the worlds only Jewish state.

  49. tertius

    For Monty:

    The post-totalitarian system touches people at every step, but it does so with its ideological gloves on. This is why the life in the system is so thoroughly permeated with hypocrisy and lies: government by bureaucracy is called popular government; the working class is enslaved in the name of the working class; the complete degradation of the individual is presented as his ultimate liberation; depriving people of information is called making it available; the use of power to manipulate is called the public control of power, and the arbitrary abuse of power is called observing the legal code; the repression of culture is called its development; the expansion of imperial influence is presented as support for the oppressed; the lack of free expression becomes the highest form of freedom; farcical elections become the highest form of democracy; banning independent thought becomes the most scientific of world views…

    Vaclav Havel

  50. Yohan

    Since this website was once mostly about Libertarianism, let’s remind our self that in a truly free society people should have the right to discriminate against anyone they like on any basis, racial, sexual or otherwise.

    You may find it distasteful, but overall society is best served by a consistent application of liberty.

    “The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”

    H.L. Mencken

  51. MT Isa Miner

    james

    #1107821, posted on December 12, 2013 at 1:56 pm

    Mark and those like him indeed have to make a choice.

    Are they a part of THEIR community or are they willing to be members of OUR community.

    Do they see their fellow citizens as brothers and sisters or barely restrained beasts in need of whips and chains to prevent them from organising pogroms?

    World war 2 was quite a while ago and Australians fought on the good side. It might just be time for the Jewish community in Australia to recognize this and give us goyim enough of the benefit of the doubt to allow us free speech.

    The Jewish leaders are rank hypocrites.

    There’s more free air now even before the repeal so we can see who likes free speech and who likes to fence off their communities for their own political purposes .

    Sinclair as usual is reasonable and reasoned. It could have been with Jewish support. Too bad if it’s not. Repeal it.

  52. J.H.

    Monty wrote………
    m0nty
    #1107605, posted on December 12, 2013 at 11:28 am
    Okay then, I’ll try again.
    Those who chose to walk down the path of 18C must do so alone, without the comfort and friendship of those of us who chose freedom over slavery.

    Rejecting the Jewish community on the basis of their strong desire not to be persecuted seems to me to be an imprudent decision by the right. If there is any culture which should be listened to on the topic of racial respect, it is the Jewish people. Shunning them is not the answer.
    —————————————————————————————————————-
    Shunning them?….. No, we are not “Shunning” them. We are engaging with them in the defence of freedom. A law that silences people is not the way to freedom.

    Freedom is responsibility. We want the irresponsible to speak their minds, so that we may know them…. and just because a person is Jewish, doesn’t mean that they too can’t be irresponsible with freedom or the freedom of others.

    It is dangerous to have a situation where an activist judge chosen by an activist government can determine legally what is criticism and what is hate speech and have the power to silence the public debate.

    No. All must be free to speak their minds and be judged by what they say…. That is the nature of a free and liberal society.

  53. stackja

    S18C of the RDA

    The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (RDA) is a statute passed by the Australian Parliament during the Prime Ministership of Labor Gough Whitlam.

    So Gough is the problem again.

  54. Sinclair Davidson

    No. The RDA was passed by the Whitlam government, s18C was added by the Keating government.

  55. stackja

    Sinclair Davidson
    #1108080, posted on December 12, 2013 at 4:42 pm
    No. The RDA was passed by the Whitlam government, s18C was added by the Keating government.

    Then Keating is the problem. Same ALP.

  56. Gab

    I don’t understand why you being so obtuse, monty. Is it about your need for attention or merely comprehension fail on your part? Which is it?

  57. Michel Lasouris

    It is utterly astonishing to find where in the world the freedom to express one-self is currently under attack, and just who is involved in the legal actions to restrict these long–held freedoms.
    Eighty years ago, the rising power of Fascism in Europe was facilitated to a major extent by totalitarian regimes strictly controlling what their populations could read in the papers and hear over the radio. Not only was freedom to tell the truth about fascism suppressed, but this control permitted evil propaganda to be broadcast. This manipulation of the media was one reason for the ultimate solution; the extermination of all those deemed to be enemies of the Third Reich. The Holocaust was unleashed, but the lack of a free press meant that no-one knew what was going on; or if they did they were too frightened to express an opinion.
    Currently, the attacks on the Freedom of speech are prevalent in Australia, Britain and Canada. These three Nations suffered nearly 600,000 fatal casualties in their endeavours to successfully destroy Fascism in Europe. Sadly too late to save some 6,000,000 Jews, but nonetheless a terrible price in the lives of young Australian, Canadian and British men and women.
    You would think perhaps that the very last people to defend the suppression of free speech would be those who had suffered most grievously from press censorship in Nazi Europe.
    But astonishingly we find that Justices and Barristers and now a government Representative from Jewish backgrounds are at the forefront in removing freedoms of speech; the very sons of the generation that experienced the horrors of the Holocaust. How in the name of humanity could this happen? Why is not Jewry saying “Enough! Our sons should not support of this infamy”
    Ray Finkelstein, Ron Merkel, Mordecai Bromberg , Michael Danby and Mark Dreyfus in Australia , together with Brian Leveson in Britain should be asking themselves some hard questions. As should the Australian Labor and Greens Parties that are hell bent on emulating the excesses of European Totalitarianism by pursuing censure of the Press and maintaining the iniquitous Section 18c of the vilification law, and now trying to frustrate it’s removal.

  58. james

    Michel L you are spot on.

    I hope I am mistaken, but the mentality amongst some “community leaders” is that free speech is a dangerous thing.

    I am sure not everyone in community shares this mindset but some prominent Jewish people seem determined to see the communities with which they share this country as easily stampeded cattle that need to be protected from loud noises lest they get spooked into rushing about dangerously.

    Considering the history of anti Jewish conspiracy theories depicting them as the hidden hand controlling everything behind the scenes this is a dangerous impression to be leaving.

    One only hopes that someone in the community can break ranks on the issue. Jews in Melbourne seem to hold violently diverse viewpoints on every single subject from Israel to nail polish so surely they cannot be so unanimous on this issue as they currently appear.

  59. Bruce

    This in today’s Jerusalem Post:

    http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/How-to-fight-intolerance-334718

    Certainly, there are Jews who believe in freedom of expression, even for bona fide fascists. Who would have thought? (That was a sarcastic comment, for any of you over-literate types out there!)

  60. So Monty says that Sinc is “rejecting the Jewish community”?

    In your world Monty, are Jews not individuals who can make up their own mind? They must support 18C because it is somehow baked into their little Jewish geneticals?

    Don’t be daft, Robert. I was merely speaking of Leibler as a representative of the Jewish community. Of course it is not an homogenous group, but Leibler does represent a significant point of view among them.

  61. I am not being obtuse, Gab. I objected to Sinclair using rhetoric to try to shame Leibler, to isolate him and those who agree with him as walking alone on a different road. This was an overreaction, I feel.

    Apart from anything else, guilt tripping a Jewish dude about something his mother would have guilt tripped him about the other way isn’t going to work. ;)

  62. Gab

    I objected to Sinclair using rhetoric to try to shame Leibler, to isolate him and those who agree with him as walking alone on a different road. This was an overreaction, I feel.

    lol you’re still knitting the kangaroo, you hysterical drama queen.

  63. wreckage

    I objected to Sinclair using rhetoric to try to shame Leibler

    Anytime you tell someone they’re wrong, you shame them. It’s that simple. Trying to re-word it such that pointing out an unethical action is somehow, instead, a form of bullying is pathetic.

  64. Token

    Liebler & other Jewish leaders deserve to be called out for their refusal to raise a voice to object to the extremely offensive words of Blomberg & Merkel in the Bolt trial.

    They have acted shamefully by being silent in public when a law they want to prevent evil words & unjyst acts is used to defame an ally of theirs in such a crass & personal manner.

    They have acted shamefully and must be called on that poor behaviour.

  65. james

    They have acted shamefully by being silent in public when a law they want to prevent evil words & unjyst acts is used to defame an ally

    To many community leaders Bolt is not an ally, just another dangerous Goy in need of controlling.

  66. wreckage

    To many community leaders Bolt is not an ally, just another dangerous Goy in need of controlling.

    Which ones? Maybe if you gave us a link instead of insinuating systematic racism as the Jewish community’s motivation?

Comments are closed.