Peter Hitchens on Q&A

q and a with peter hitchens

It seems from the thread that most of those who watched Q&A last night were disappointed but for me it was not only the first one I have been able to get through from end to end but when it ended I could not believe that the hour had gone by so quickly.

Hitchens for me was amazing. Absolute and complete disdain for everything said by the others and a total grasp of the moral facts in play. He cared nothing at all for the good opinion of any of them – not the host and not the other guests – and mowed them down in turn with an incredibly deep understanding of the values and culture of the West which in his hands made the rest of them appear for what they were: shallow, destructive, vulgar and vile. I have never seen anything like it. Even if these others were unable to experience shame, they would have known they had been completely done over.

And while I had not come across that Savage chap, Germaine Greer and Hannah Rosin are not rookies in presenting their line of argument and I suppose Savage had been at it for a while himself. But they were absolutely done over. And Hitchens’ disdain for the host was in itself a pleasure to see, which really came out when he asked why he alone from amongst all the guests was being interrupted in the middle of his point. And he would not let go and made the point over again even while being interrupted.

There is not much you can do with the ABC but trying to get more people like Hitchens in front of a camera seems a good place to start.

This entry was posted in Cultural Issues. Bookmark the permalink.

95 Responses to Peter Hitchens on Q&A

  1. Fibro says:

    Steve I agree that Hitchens did a good job. I guess the real question is was he supporting the majority view or the minority view. Methinks it would be overwhlemingly majority view, except of course within the hallowed walls of the ABC.
    Tony Abott really should have done a Kerry Packer and called Mark Scott…….. Get that shit off. What that Yankee Nancy came out with in the first 5 minutes was just a disgrace.

  2. Lysander says:

    The ABC would say they were being fair by having Hitchens on.

    Trust me, I’ve seen enough shit on the ABC to know there are plenty of times where they wouldn’t have even bothered.

  3. Ant says:

    I see 5 people in that photo but only one appears serious. The others seem to be expressing various levels of dopeyness. Looks like it tells the story.

    As for the big-mouthed professional contrarian Greer, I recall on one of her many past Q&A appearances she revealed 3 things about herself:

    1. She was a “Marxist”.
    2. She has made “millions of dollars”.
    3. She resented having to pay so much in taxes.

    If you’re a Marxist with millions of dollars, how can giving it all the state be a problem?

  4. Arnost says:

    Tony Abott really should have done a Kerry Packer and called Mark Scott

    Ooooh… Wouln’t that be something! But dream on – TA would have to go over MT’s head and that would cause no end of excitement.

  5. egg_ says:

    Q&A:

    Q. If you’re a Marxist with millions of dollars, how can giving it all the state be a problem?
    A. Hypocrisy.

  6. Rabz says:

    … made the rest of them appear for what they were: shallow, destructive, vulgar and vile.

    I’d be only too happy to add a few more descriptors to that list.

    Don’t know how or why people put themselves through such rubbish, even with someone like Hitchens appearing.

    😡

  7. Fisky says:

    I watched some of it. The contrast between Peter Hitchens and the children on the panel was quite disconcerting.

    People often wonder why the Fisk Doctrine is needed, but anyone can now see that the Left have nothing serious to contribute to any discussion and can only poison our discourse.

  8. Viva says:

    He cared nothing at all for the good opinion of any of them – not the host and not the other guests – and mowed them down in turn with an incredibly deep understanding of the values and culture of the West which in his hands made the rest of them appear for what they were: shallow, destructive, vulgar and vile.

    ? Idries Shah, Reflections

    “Two people can illustrate crudity to you. The first is the crude man, whom you see perceiving the diamond as a stone. The other is the refined man, who makes clear to you the crudity of the first one.”

    “When the ignorant have become numerous or powerful enough, they have been referred to by a special name. This name is ‘the Wise’.”

  9. Andrew says:

    Hitchens spoke very well, but we have to remember that he is a big government statist who certainly rejects individualism.

  10. C.L. says:

    Hitchens’ claim that Christianity died in Europe in 1914 is kind of absurd.

    You have to be careful with polemicists like Hitchens and Steyn. Sometimes their ultra-pessimism is crafted to bring into stark relief the truths they speak. They ought to be fighters and not Monday morning historians of an allegedly lost game.

  11. Lysander says:

    What most amazes me about ABC, Snowcone and the like is their unwavering commitment to the Greens/Left-filth. In the last 10 years of voting in my lifetime, I have wavered from the Greens to the ALP to the Libs to the LDP. Such a linear progression aligns with age!

    On the ABC, nobody progresses. Is this evidence of a mono-culture?

  12. twostix says:

    Hitchens spoke very well, but we have to remember that he is a big government statist who certainly rejects individualism.

    What makes you say that Andrew? I read his blog occasionally and don’t find that to be the case. He’s no Libertarian but I wouldn’t call him a big government statist.

  13. Bruce says:

    Hakkaa päälle! 4 to 1 odds just means guys like Hitchens have a target rich opportunity.

    The warning for the ABC: the more you demonstrate partisanship in the new political era the more chance that the LNP government will find entertaining ways of making your lives miserable. Better get up to date with advertisement production methods quickly.

    Or you could find a suddenly rediscovered, long neglected, journalistic balance and professionalism, as Nick Cater reprised in the Oz last weekend.

  14. Rabz says:

    They ought to be fighters

    Steyn destroyed Canada’s equivalent of Section 18c.

    He picked that fight and won it.

    Here’s hoping he does the same to that preposterous, puffed up fraud, Hockey Stick Mann.

    If you still think he’s not a ‘fighter’, read this magisterial destruction of yet another enemy of free speech.

  15. Rabz says:

    On the ABC, nobody progresses. Is this evidence of a mono-culture?

    Didn’t Maurice Newman have rather pointed observation to make about this indisputable fact?

  16. boy on a bike says:

    On the ABC, nobody progresses. Is this evidence of a mono-culture?

    No – it’s evidence that the ABC is an incredibly conservative and hide-bound, out of date institution that is desperately stuck in the past.

    Result – radical thinking is required to reform this insular mono-cultural throwback.

  17. Andrew says:

    What makes you say that Andrew? I read his blog occasionally and don’t find that to be the case. He’s no Libertarian but I wouldn’t call him a big government statist.

    Firstly, he is a self professed Burkean conservative. Burke was very reluctant towards a market economy.
    Secondly, I watched the below video amongst other videos this past week where they have interviewed Peter Hitchens. Hitchens said that he favoured a social-democratic economy. Finally, on Qanda last night he was very critical of neoliberalism and that it had helped lead to the downfall of moral standards in our society.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ATJ23ftuho (31:40)

  18. Lysander says:

    Rabz, while I like your point I think boy on a bike wins hands down 🙂

  19. egg_ says:

    boy on a bike
    #1058265, posted on November 5, 2013 at 1:01 pm

    A case of “arrested development” were my thoughts.

  20. JC says:

    Look, Hitchens is only an ally because of his unwavering disgust with the Left… as it should be. However he’s not my flag waver. The crap he said about the alignment of big business with feminazis was ridiculous.

    Hitchens doesn’t seem to see that most of the problems we have is caused by big government and all he wants to do is swap his version of big government for the left’s. No thanks.

    Beyond that Hitch, just keep hitting the vermin and don’t take off your knuckduster.

    I must admit he really ripped Savage a new one, which I’m sure he wouldn’t mind.

  21. stackja says:

    ….shallow, destructive, vulgar and vile. I have never seen anything like it.
    Even if these others were unable to experience shame, …

    ABC ….shallow, destructive, vulgar and vile. …unable to experience shame, ….

  22. Toiling Mass says:

    Rabz, I have always preferred the Piltdown Mann – it underlines the scientific hoax.

  23. dover_beach says:

    Andrew, Burke was a Whig; he rallied against the crony capitalism of the East India Company. He has since been described as a conservative simply because of his opposition to the revolution in France. Being critical of ‘neo-liberalism’ where criticism is required and deserved is not tantamount to big-government statism.

  24. JC says:

    One of the points that amazed me was how the leftwing panel seemed perfectly okay with women being sexually promiscuous and in fact were encouraging it.

    For young males who don’t and shouldn’t get married, that would have to be the best egg on ever. Gals… be more slutty and sleep with more men.

    It’s a good thing, right? LOl

  25. JC says:

    ABC ….shallow, destructive, vulgar and vile. …unable to experience shame, ….

    Their ABC actually think they are ground breaking, but it’s an institution stuck in the 70’s.

  26. H B Bear says:

    Q & A is now a full blown freak show.

    If Snowcone wasn’t employed by the ALPBC he would be in a circus tent on Brunswick Street with a bearded woman, a few dwarves (possibly singed) and a hermaphrodite.

  27. Lysander says:

    Their ABC actually think they are ground breaking, but it’s an institution stuck in the 70?s.

    Yes I am beginning to think you’re right. This was the cutting edge stuff of the Left in the 70’s and was also thanks to Greer and a few other fringers. Hasn’t gone anywhere at all so they should just give up and get with the times!

  28. Rabz says:

    Piltdown Mann

    Love it!

  29. boy on a bike says:

    We should all continue to ram home the point that the ABC is now the most conservative organization in the country. I don’t mean conservative as in right wing – I mean conservative as in totally resistant to change and cultural evolution. They’re stuck in a self made tarpit that is a leftist equivalent of the 1950’s white picket fence. We should continually use terminology like “old fashioned”, “out of date”, “stuck in the past”, “culturally stagnant” and “anti-progress”.

    Feel free to add more terms that will cause lefty head explosions.

  30. JC says:

    Reactionary?

    There’s really no use complaining about them under a liberal government. The know what to do.

  31. egg_ says:

    boy on a bike
    #1058321, posted on November 5, 2013 at 1:59 pm

    Maxine McKew’s penchant for pearl necklaces (and spotted frocks) has always said “1950s Doctors Wife” IMHO; perfect getup for Crabb’s “Kitchen Cabinet”.

  32. twostix says:

    Firstly, he is a self professed Burkean conservative. Burke was very reluctant towards a market economy.
    Secondly, I watched the below video amongst other videos this past week where they have interviewed Peter Hitchens. Hitchens said that he favoured a social-democratic economy. Finally, on Qanda last night he was very critical of neoliberalism and that it had helped lead to the downfall of moral standards in our society.

    Yes I agree he’s not a Libertarian and he does this stupid thing where he blames the free market for not providing him with a particular type of apple that he likes.
    His writing can be exceptional, particularly when he’s taking apart and documenting the foundations of the modern post 1970’s left and its successes. He’s absolutely terrible in public appearances in comparison though.

  33. twostix says:

    Maxine McKew’s penchant for pearl necklaces (and spotted frocks) has always said “1950s Doctors Wife” IMHO; perfect getup for Crabb’s “Kitchen Cabinet”.

    The contemporary left.

  34. Rabz says:

    The contemporary left.

    Looks like that monstrous ol’ harridan, Madge Grattan!

  35. Walter Plinge says:

    They’re stuck in a self made tarpit that is a leftist equivalent of the 1950?s white picket fence.

    More like this, which is how I think of the ABC —

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e4/Wyngarde_as_Jason_King.JPG

  36. Halina Kaczmarek says:

    First time in many months I watched Q&A from start to finish. Peter Hitchens was so far above the rest of the panel, he made them look like idiots.

  37. Alex Pundit says:

    If you want to see absolute classic, gold Peter Hitchens material, Youtube search his duelling with Russell Brand.

  38. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B. says:

    He’s absolutely terrible in public appearances in comparison though.

    Disagree. He didn’t flinch, he didn’t give an inch. Greer, next to him, was constantly eye-seeking some sort of approval, or recognition. She didn’t get it. Nor did anyone else, including Snow-cone.

    He rivals Da Hairy Ape for the poker face when the heat is on. Excellent work. And an incisive mind obviously there, the way he honed in accurately to the heart of the matter so often, in spite of a few hints of the old-socialist authoritarianism still lurking. At least he admits his past.

  39. Rabz says:

    Walt – you’ve nailed it.

  40. sunshine says:

    That bloke Hitchens seemed a bit bad tempered to me . He seemed to want the govt to decide what we can and cant do .

  41. boy on a bike says:

    Re: Hitchen’s demeanour – I wonder if they had a little bust up in the Green Room prior to going on stage?

  42. Myshkin says:

    Thanks for the heads up.

    I recently became a fan of Mr Hitchens and have been devouring all of his writing and Youtube videos I can get my hands on.

    Isn’t it good to see another well balanced panel on Q&A 😉

    I agree with you, it is nearly impossible to watch. Last time I snuck a peek was to watch Suzuki embarrass himself.

  43. Rob says:

    Steve,
    I agree with you completely on your comments. I found myself cheering for Hitchens as he didn’t take any of the rubbish. The fiery debate at the end where Savage was trying to say that rites of those who oppose the “cultural revolution” would not be removed, is a lie. Hitchens made sure that he didn’t get away with that.
    I have recently seen a video on the downfall of civil rites in Massachusetts USA because of the legalisation of homosexual marriage in 2004. The level of constant abuse towards those who are morally against this, is increasing everyday. A father, for example, was thrown into prison for wanting to know when his child was going to be taught any of the rhetoric, so that he could remove his child.
    Let us not let go of the wisdom that comes from the Bible and thus forget the hard lessons learnt by going against it.

  44. Mk50 of Brisbane, Henchman to the VRWC says:

    JC is correct.

    the ABC and the Australian left are hidebound and reactionary.

    They remind me of the famous quote attributed to Talleyrand in regard of the Bourbons: ‘they had learned nothing and forgotten nothing’

    Speaking of which, Pickering nails Wee Willy Shortarse on this very point.

  45. manalive says:

    God what a waste of an hour.
    Poor old Germaine, what a terrible old bore she’s become, regurgitating the same worn out whinge for over fifty years. At least Hitchens has refreshed his act.
    She sounded half-sloshed, gaga, or a bit of both.

  46. Mike of Marion says:

    What would her sling be for the night? $5000?

  47. “Hitchens you magnificent bastard!”

    It says it, his performance was outstanding, they way in which he countered anything that infantile Dan Savage had to say was masterful, but above all, he was on the money.

  48. samuel j says:

    Why do so many of the idiot questioners start by saying things like ‘as a young woman’ or ‘as a woman in my 20s’. Who really cares? Most of them look like they are in their 50s.

  49. cohenite says:

    In my opinion all young women in their 20s’ need a good root. Greer never had one and look what happened to her.

  50. Lucie says:

    So she just had lots of bad ones then???

  51. Lucie says:

    Peter Hitchens: the more interesting brother.

  52. Pickles says:

    That’s the way Cohenite, straight to the heart of it.

  53. cohenite says:

    So she just had lots of bad ones then???

    I wasn’t one of them so I can hardly say, can I?

  54. James of the Glen says:

    Hitchens had read the audience early on. He had also read the panel and Snowy. The dangerous idea concerning Jesus Christ near the end of the show was a superb piece of manipulation – lure the baying anti-Christian mob down one lane with the very mention (lots of applause) of Christ being dangerous and then ambush it with the reasons why.
    The confusion in the tiny brains of the audience as they grappled with the meaning left them unable to know what to do, certainly not applaud lest they make a mistake. Priceless.

    And Christopher gave a lesson to those conservatives unwise enough to join future panels; never look at the interrupters, keep on talking to the audience until the point is made. Snowy hates being reduced to irrelevance.

  55. dover_beach says:

    And Christopher

    Peter, in fact. Christopher, his brother, is no longer with us.

  56. Lucie says:

    Tink he was aiming lower, Pickles

  57. James of the Glen says:

    Dover Beach, quite so.

  58. calli says:

    In my opinion all young women in their 20s’ need a good root.

    LOL! Well said Cohenite!

    I was 20 years and 27 days old when I married the one my heart loves. The kiddies these days leave commitment far too late…

    😀

  59. Leonard Greenfall says:

    I found it quite disturbing to hear and see Peter Hitchens interrupted often without restraint by the host and cut short in the middle of a serious answer by a question not that relevant. I also think Hitchens was right to rebuke the audience who handclapped at one point, as in a rally, to drown his comments. My third point of disturbance was the inability of the host or the other members of the panel to support Hitchen when he responded to the label of paranoia – it is a unfortunate truism that downsizing opposing views with derogatory labels does seem to work. Overall there was such a bias by the host that it became embarrassing to watch. I dont know all of Peter Hitchens views and have no blanket approval for them but regardless of his or anyones views it comes down to the words attributed to Voltaire “I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”

  60. JC says:

    Why do so many of the idiot questioners start by saying things like ‘as a young woman’ or ‘as a woman in my 20s’

    It’s a vanity thing…” look at me”, sort of bullshit.

  61. Tiny Dancer says:

    Singed dwarves are too classy for Snowcone. Dwarves have massive entertainment value. Snowcone is just shit.

  62. manalive says:

    Here are some statistics, word search results:
    women 61
    marriage 37
    gay 14
    drugs 7
    job 6
    God 6
    Christian 4
    divorce 3
    abortion 3
    Jesus Christ 2
    gay marriage 2
    blow 2
    blow job 1
    cunnilingus 1
    jewish 1 …
    … climate change 0

  63. TimT says:

    DAN SAVAGE: How do you hope to bring about the world – to return the world to the state you would like to see it in without authoritarian (indistinct) …

    PETER HITCHENS: Oh, I gave that…

    DAN SAVAGE: You’re not going to get the pot out of my hands any other way.

    PETER HITCHENS: I gave that up long ago. It would only make me miserable. I know that you people have won. All that I seek to do…

    DAN SAVAGE: Which is why you have to be gay married now and do drugs now with the rest of us.

    PETER HITCHENS: No, all I seek to do is to tell the truth about you and what you want while it’s still allowed to do so because you are so fantastically intolerant.

    Yeah, C. L.’s right. He comes across in this as a bit of a humourless sook. This is just a right-wing version of a left-wing victim stance. He could have played along with the joke and got his message across much more effectively.

  64. manalive says:

    Ooops that should be Jewish.

  65. Juliana says:

    I thought Peter Hitchens was refreshing & honest unlike his fellow panelists. It was really 3 against one, probably 4 against one including Tony Jones.
    Increasingly the ABC seems to be very left wing & biased, especially Q & A. I wonder how much longer I can watch it without getting increasingly dismayed & annoyed. Balance & equal time is what is needed, not the agenda of those who run these programs.
    Peter Hitchens will be remembered for his uncompromising stand in his beliefs, unlike the shallow ideals of the others on the panel.

  66. jumpnmcar says:

    If a show with 4 v 1 against lefties were to happen I might watch it.
    I’d settle for 2 v 2 with Kevin Bloody Wilson as Moderator.

  67. Viva says:

    I was 20 years and 27 days old when I married the one my heart loves.

    I was 21 – a virtual child bride lol.

  68. Catfeesh? says:

    In my opinion all young women in their 20s’ need a good root.

    Never has a truer word been spoken.

  69. dover_beach says:

    He comes across in this as a bit of a humourless sook.

    I don’t see anything humorous in Savage’s exchange nor any sooking in Hitchens’s response. The attempted humour here is designed to avoid any serious intellectual exchange; Hitchens is right to ignore and he is right to describe him as fantastically intolerant.

  70. Carpe Jugulum says:

    never look at the interrupters, keep on talking to the audience until the point is made. Snowy hates being reduced to irrelevance.

    Exactly what Julie Bishop did. Don’t engage with them they are full on emo. Stay aloof and articulate clearly the point of discussion.

    In JBs case it shut snowcone down completely and in Peters case it allowed him to state his point.

  71. Gab says:

    Julie B was great at that. She’d stop speaking and wait for snow cone to finish his interruption and then she’d continue her sentence without missing a beat. She never spoke over the top of him, just waited for him to finish. And all the while she stared straight ahead, never once glancing at snow cone. Great strategy and worked effectively making snow cone look like a blathering emotional idiot, which he is anyway.

  72. JC says:

    Tony Springer-Jones has a very punchable face. It’s not a threat, but it amazes me that no one has decked the prick yet on the show. There should be a rule that after the third interruption you are free to deck the fucker.

  73. Nanuestalker says:

    all I seek to do is to tell the truth about you and what you want while it’s still allowed to do so because you are so fantastically intolerant.

    A fine synopsis of the left’s pretence, liberals my ass.

  74. wreckage says:

    The attempted humour here is designed to avoid any serious intellectual exchange; Hitchens is right to ignore and he is right to describe him as fantastically intolerant.

    Yes, exactly, DB. Don’t let your opponent get away with that clown-nose-on, clown-nose-off garbage. Because the point here is not what you’re allowed to do, it’s what you’re allowed to say. The general movement seems to be towards a society where anything is tolerated, except disagreement.

    To tolerate people who are required by law to be effusively supportive at all times is not tolerance, it’s thin-skinned entitlement wrapped in blind self-righteousness and defended with a fiery cascade of indignant moral outrage. I cannot see any difference between that and the very worst behaviours attributed to “the religious”.

  75. nilk, Iron Bogan says:

    I wasn’t online last night, and just couldn’t bring myself to switch on for that effluent, even for Peter Hitchens.

    As for Dan Savage, here are some of his greatest hits.

    I’ll include a not for the faint of heart nor stomach.

    That the ALPBC brought had this piece of detritus on board tells me all I need to know, and after I’ve watched the show I’ll be happy to add my sternly worded email to that Nice Mr. Scott (thanks, Nancy).

  76. Eddystone says:

    I just watched, because I wanted to hear Peter Hitchens.

    He actually got more support than I expected.

  77. Lucie says:

    “While it’s still allowed to do so” – chilling.

  78. jupes says:

    As for Dan Savage, here are some of his greatest hits.

    This is extraordinary. The left hate conservatives that much that they bring a man to the Festival of Dangerous Ideas – and the ABC – whose only claim to fame as is that he is a homosexual who is willing to speak about homo sex acts in vulgar terms and he is willing to use those terms to abuse conservatives.

    That’s it.

    What a sick, sordid society they are imposing on us.

  79. stackja says:

    What a sick, sordid society they are imposing on us.

    If we let them. I do not feel disposed to be imposed on.

  80. Megan says:

    I’ve just sat through the whole thing as recommended by Carpe last night. It’s nigh impossible to articulate how far we, as a society, have fallen. The moment when Hitchens challenged the audience for the prolonged applause designed to stop him from continuing to make his point clearly demonstrated the intolerance for opposing views that Hitchens is alluding to.

    As for Mr Bring On Abortion as Population Control..Savage by name, savage by nature. His behaviour was both ugly and vapid.

  81. GeorgeMitchell says:

    Wow, I followed a link to this site and I find myself in Wierdo Righty world, a place I rarely visit. The idea of the ABC’s bias that runs through this thread flies in the face of enquiries and the day-to-day evidence. It is as absurd as Peter Hitchens’ insistence that somehow views like his can be neither expressed nor heard even though he was expressing them on national television. Do you people not see Peter Reith (today, for example) making regular appearances on the ABC? Did you know Amanda Vanstone has her own show on the ABC? Do you ever see Sinclair Davidson on the Drum, or the many reps of the IPA? Did not Andrew Bolt get a good run on Insiders? Are not Peirs Akerman and Gerard Henderson reguar guests? If you seriously believe the ABC is biased, then you are fooling yourselves. The evidence says otherwise.

    To my mind Hitchens came across as a drab, humourless fellow with some kind of persecution complex who freely called his fellow panelists liars and questioned the sincerity of their views. He seemed perpetually outraged about things that need be of no concern to him while claiming that voices like his would soon be shut down – by whom, why and when was never made clear.

    And then we come to someone on this thread thinking that it is some kind of contribution to any discussion to declare that all women in their twenties need a good root and while claiming to know that Germaine Greer never had one. As if that somehow explains whatever aspect of her personality that the person who wrote this dislikes. Seems to me that it’s a cheap shot that covers up an inability to engage with any sensible conversation.

    I might drop by this site from time to time. Everyone needs a laugh, after all.

  82. wide eyed says:

    Peter Hitchens – never heard of him before – sorry – so this was a revelation of the good kind.

    ….. with an incredibly deep understanding of the values and culture of the West….

    Am getting acquainted with this thinker a bit more now – just fantastic to know there is a contemporary with high benchmarks – all is not lost just yet…..

  83. wreckage says:

    As for Mr Bring On Abortion as Population Control

    Charming.

  84. GeorgeMitchell says:

    Hilarious, I write a comment disagreeing with pretty much everyone in this thread, and it is not published. What happened to open debate and free speech? I think Peter Hitchens described attempts to prevent him talking as ‘wicked’. You guys are great.

  85. Leo G says:

    As for Mr Bring On Abortion as Population Control

    That appeared to be the majority opinion of the Quibble&Anstoss panel and audience. Note how the audience loudly cheered the proposal for universal compulsory abortion for a period of 30 years. Degenerate progressivist and proud of it. What weak-minded, self-obsessed fools.
    Even Savage claimed he only seriously supported such a policy when in his darker (most authoritarian) moods. He clearly understood the ethical and intellectual vacuity of his audience. What a scoundrel!

  86. Matt says:

    The best thing on the show was the tweet praising the man who lasted 3 weeks as Germaines’ husband.

  87. Freeman says:

    Peter Hitchens gave me hope. For once I felt like I was not alone in my disgust and shame for the so called cultural revolution actually caused by the baby-boomers like me. Of cause it is sick! men marrying men, using cell phone apps for the purpose having casual anal intercourse, completely deviate from the biological plan and one day, I hope, curable. The ABC must have felt that they made a pretty grave mistake bringing him on, given they are the media promoting depravity and loss of individual freedom in their freekish Fabian society with Orwellian thought police and double speak. Even though they stacked that deck with the perverse , the deviate and the extremists, he still walked all over them. Well done and thank you. I am now a devoted fan and and inspired to no longer shut up or be howled down by the degenerates who curtail free speech. These so called rights activists are in fact quite the opposite, they are rights removers, they are relentless in their quest to make sure that all must adopt their view and their view only. They hate our traditions, they hate our history, they hate our culture, they hate a love of God, they hate a sence of family, they hate our love of freedom, they hate our opinions, they hate every thing that shames them and reveals what they really are. I am going to take a stand too, I won’t be told anymore what is right and wrong by the circus freeks, products of gestational stress and biological mishaps, who have infiltrated our societal mechanics.

  88. wreckage says:

    Note how the audience loudly cheered the proposal for universal compulsory abortion for a period of 30 years.

    Somebody cheered that? Bloody hell. The argument is over. They’re Nazis. The only difference is they’re a tiny bit… a very tiny bit… more squeamish. I sincerely hope none of my lefty friends cheered that shit. Actually I hope you’ve misread the whole situation and they actually booed. That’s my preferred reality.

  89. John D says:

    The manner in which PH was treated on QandA by Tony Jones, and the inane or offensive comments by other panelists was truly disgusting. However, those of you who speak in his defence by being as equally offensive with your comments does his cause and or more importantly, his right to be heard, no favours.

    I don’t agree with everything be said, however he had a right to be heard and in a manner reflective of a tolerant and educated society willing to listen to the ideas of others. And so the behaviour of adjudicator, other panelists and the majority if the audience speaks for itself – reflecting their behaviours through equally offensive language on this site is not a good look.

    He maintained his dignity, composure and train of thought throughout the program and that was a wonderful thing to behold. And as result I have ordered a couple of his more recent books to find out more about his ideas for myself. I suspect I may not like what I read.

  90. Geoffrey Preece says:

    I relistened to qanda after reading some of Miranda Devines’ comments in the Daily Telegraph, and thought I must have missed something. And now Catallaxy, the bias you both show is extraordinary. Peter Hitchens put his views quite well except for the ridiculous nazi – soviet connection, and the extreme indignation at being interrupted, while Savage and Hannah had been interrupted previously without fuss. To suggest that Hitchens was “amazing” in some debating sense and the others were “shallow, destructive and vulgar” shows a shallow, destructive and vulgar analysis of worthwhile contributions from all the panellists. Tony Jones interrupted everyone at least once. I happen to disagree with almost everything Hitchens said, but that is different to the clarity, which was fairly good.

  91. mimi says:

    I loved the show. and I loved many of the points discussed. heck, it got you guys talking, even the ones that ‘cannot stand’ q&a, or Germaine or Peter etc. you watched, you reacted. dangerous ideas!! relax people and just be nice to each other. peace and love (as Ringo would say).

  92. Cunning Linguist says:

    Peter Hitchens was entirely correct in saying he is entitled to his own opinion… they way in which Dan Savage rebutted Hitchens’ ideas and thoughts every time showed us all the state of the current populous and how narcissistic, intolerable and uneducated they have become. Even worse was the rally of the audience not allowing Hitchens to comment, further demonstrating the lack of maturity and knowledge people now attain, to the point in which they acted in way similar to that of chimpanzees fighting over a banana.

  93. Jules says:

    A bit late to this thread (sorry). Although I tend to disagree with Peter Hitchens for the most part, whilst still appreciating his arguments, on this particular Q&A (I would say my favourite ever), he provided a brilliant counterpoint to the arguments of the others – particularly Adam Savage, who just seemed so set in his glib proclamations on freedom and liberty. Peter was quite right in suggesting that the messages in his rants seemed totalitarian – especially in questioning his certainty that “no one is getting hurt”. I realise I take a generally different view to most others commenting here (undoubtedly I’m just another `inner-city bourgeois bohemian type’), but I always appreciate a well-elucidated argument from a more conservative perspective and with Peter, he never disappoints. He gets to the moral heart of the matter and cuts through the crap. Disappointingly though, I think comments here re Germaine Greer are a bit unwarranted. To my mind, she provided balance and rationality (as usual). As for her Marxist past, let’s not forget that Peter Hitchens was once a Trotskyist. I also think the ABC deserves credit, if not for anything other than the fact that they always bring a variety of perspectives on any given topic.

  94. What a breath of air is Peter Hitchens – not afraid to say it like it is and take the hostile flak. Flinging taunts is easy peasy but standing respectfully on truth is much harder. Peter thank you.

  95. Kash says:

    Wreckage, I watched it, they cheered. We’re doomed. It makes me sick when the likes of Germaine Greer derides marriage and Savage declares abortion the high moral ground. When they’re in some nursing home they’ll be glad someone else’s kid is tyere wiping their sorry arses.

Comments are closed.