LET’S JUST recap what the past few days have told us about the state of free speech in Australia.
A much-published author with a life coach, personal trainer and busy travel itinerary receives $90,000 in public money to publish a memoir of her success in having a court affirm that a relatively small drop of Aboriginal blood affords legal protection from hurt feelings.
Her book is titled Am I Black Enough For You?, and when the topic is opened for discussion by the ABC, the answer is made so rapidly and abundantly clear that the thread is allowed to remain open for less than two hours. The following day the national broadcaster makes those comments vanish altogether, while the audio link for the interview that started it all acquires an extra digit in its URL and becomes unplayable.
At her publisher’s website a similar stream of comments suffers an identical fate. None are rude, vulgar or racist, but they are most definitely scathing. As many commenters note, one of just two possible answers to the question posed by the title of the author’s book can be given only at risk of prosecution. This makes the title not a query but a sneering taunt.
Her publisher neglects to close all website pages devoted to the author, and commenters find another avenue to answer the big question. This, too, will vanish very soon, not because the sentiments are contemptible, but because the opinions that are frank, blunt and true. This cannot be allowed.
Meanwhile, the columnist the author took to court cannot respond to her provocations, his employer is too craven to appeal the ruling and a large piece of the broadsheet media will find nothing about the curtailment of its own liberty that is worth the trouble of reporting, If that is not enough, a squad of would-be censors awaits the power to impose contempt penalties, up to and including jail, on writers who fail to report events in the light they prefer. Most worrying of all, the same censors cite the author's legal triumph as a positive development in defining the limits of acceptable discourse.
This is where free speech stands in Australia: under frontal attack by a government frantic to silence its critics and eroded on the flank by a national broadcaster’s insistence on silencing opinions it actually has a charter obligation to echo. Free speech has been betrayed by two publishers, and its full set of shackles is even now being forged by people who believe recalcitrant editors need to be stamping number plates.
And yet, despite all these threats and attempts to intimidate and gag, hundreds of average Australians immediately spoke up for the right to be heard when given just the briefest chance to do so. The New Establishment will squash and ignore this little eruption, but the last few days proves its grip on debate is nowhere near as secure as it has imagined.
Free speech is in trouble, but only if we do not continue to speak up for it.
Is that why you are so early sir?ReplyDelete
Is there any we can set up a war chest so Andrew Bolt can appeal this terrible ruling by this brazen woman and her ilk?ReplyDelete
Fact is, he was speaking up, not for himself but on behalf of all those 100% genuine Aborigines being marginalised by others clever enough to exploit the red tape for themselves The Bible calls taking, whether by force of guile, what rightfully belongs to others stealing, and this is what all the commentators observed. That many are not entitled to what they claim It is not racist to speak up for those unable to do so for themselves.
That $90 000 could have alleviated an awful amount of misery in the NT, but from what I've observed from Heiss's blog, she'll be frittering it away on self-indulgent trips - way out of reach of most of her 'brethren' -to London, Paris, New York.
Let's hope she does resettle in NY and get some of that Noo York plain speaking that she disallows here..
Heiss has created a martyr and it's not her own darling self.
Let's lance this boil of hidden racism once and for all before it infects the whole of this great egalitarian country.
Shame on the ABC and Random House! It hope this whole matter doesn't go away but gets bigger and bigger so that it has to be dealt with.
Salmon Rushdie speaks
Andrew Bolt is controlled opposition. This instinct to pay for his defence when he is perfectly capabl of doing so himself is nothing more than apathy seeking to outsource the revolution.Delete
Start your own revolution and cut out the middle man.
Increasingingly, I find myself looking with envy towards the United States, where there would have been a civil insurgency if what is being attempted here was contemplated there. That is because the USA is the only democracy in the world that constitutionally guarantees personal liberty. In Australia, freedoms can be legislated away by any group that has the numbers on the floor of the federal House of Representatives. That is the real issue that must be reflected on after the current human trash loses the numbers in Canberra.ReplyDelete
I'm with you Tom. If I was a younger man I'd probably head for the US. Even with Obama and the democrats it's still miles ahead of Australia when it comes to freedom.Delete
"If I was a younger man I'd probably head for the US."Delete
Don't let age stop you. Mind you - you'd better have private health cover.
Yes Tom, while I do not wish to live in the US I do admire the right of free speech. We have just about lost that right here and another year under Gillard and Conroy will see more disappear.I find the prospect of curatiling free speech abhorent especially when enacted by a government that has no qualns about altering tender processes so it can get its own way.Delete
Numbers, you already live off the public purse (including mine) by virtue of having been a kichenhand in Vietnam in 1968, and developing a severe case of wok-related PTSD. Then a huge stint as a Qld taxpayer-funded state school teacher for whom working taxpayers are now still paying your superannuation.Delete
If you had any pride at all, you wouldn't be talking about private health cover, which I'm still paying while you have a gold card. My husband would have shot you in a minute over there, but he came home before you went and I no longer let him own a gun.
However, our son is living quite close to your town and he's a pretty good shot.
Just drawing your attention to this rant. It's a product of the packaging and refining of hate, something that you have done (unwittingly perhaps) on this topic. At least you don't market it, in the same way Bolt does.
Since you've allowed it to stand, you obviously believe that abuse and threats of physical violence are part of the deal on this site.
I served as a rifleman.
My unit was in Vietnam in 1970, not 1868.
I do not have PTSD.
I do not have a gold card.
I still work for a living.
Please provide me with a rationale as to why you are prepared to host threats, slander and abuse on your blog.
A NOTE TO POSTERS: Numbers is delicate, sensitive and scarred by ordeals in the elephant grass. Please do not mention, guns, woks or bain maries.Delete
Also, he suffers from HSD (humour deprivation syndrome). So even though he is anonymous, do not mention that you have equally anonymous children in unnamed towns, especially if they are promoted as being crack marksmen. This could be very upsetting and might interfere with the months of labour-intensive lesson preparation which teachers do when their pupils are are on holiday.
Clear on that? Think of Numbers as the distilled essence of all leftoid sensitivies and show him some consideration.
And whatever you do, don't forget the elephant grass.
You haven't answered my question Bunyip. Why do you host threats, slander and abuse on your blog? I'll give you another chance. It's a very simple and reasonable question.Delete
I couldn't care less if I'm abused because of my opinions. To hold someone's service up as an object of derision is another matter entirely. It is cowardly and unworthy.
What's it to be Bunyip - cowardice or integrity?
Your lack of a response indicates that you opt for cowardice. Disappointing. I thought you were made of sterner stuff. Henceforth I shall address you by the only epithet that applies.Delete
Anyone taking Numbers' tantrum seriously should know that after being thoroughly humiliated over on the Random House thread in his guise as Bob7, he's taken to comparing his opponents to Anders Breivik. Slander and abuse, eh?Delete
Numbers, Go f*** yourself, you vicious senile old booby.
Go to hell you ridiculous little turd. That a good enough answer for you?Delete
In future, I'll address my posts to the host, but I'll use a more fitting appellation.Delete
In keeping with the (faux) local theme I'll use "Dingo".
The two posts above pretty much set the tone...
Private 1735099 is hardly anonymous,that is unless he's using the service number of someone who did serve in Vietnam.It takes but a few seconds to identify the holder of that number and view his service record,however whether that Robert is the same Rancid Robert who posts here is open to question.My feeling is that the Rancid Robert,who we know and pity,is just an imposter.Delete
Some of us did copy the cached Random House comments. They have now been cut as well. Hopefully somebody has the evidence from the ABC, which is certainly not celebrating diversity of opinion this time.ReplyDelete
the "sneering taunt" explains it. The refugee rapist who mocks immigration laws, lawyers, judges and the very Party that made him. Boats are 'intercepted' by our proud defence forces.ReplyDelete
How many ways are there of saying "up yours" to a traditionalist or conservative or timid meek mild mind your own business 'average' Barry or Jane?
Remember Julia's "another boat another policy failure"? The sneering mocking taunt. Why was that epochal? Because a borderless nation is undefined and undefinable - the allegory is perfect. A mocking sneering perfect illustration.
Doesn't this all end with another Elena Ceauşescu in the relentless cycle of totalitarians V libertarians - all debts paid in blood.
When a bible was a common denominator of common decency dialogues were possible on a great deal. Many subjects now denied could be discussed.
Ask yourself does an "ex-gay" have a right to exist? Is an "ex-gay" scientifically possible or some bizarre uprecendented miracle claim made by irrational myth promoting religionists? Are men nothing but a succession of appetites contained in sacks of muddy water? Could an Edmond Burke turn the tide here?
Your world might turn on the question of whether an 'ex-gay' can exist and whether that would abrogate a 'gay marriage'? The question is important because if an 'ex-gay' can exist so can an "former aboriginal"?
Moreover so can a man who has changed their mind - which act denotes the most perfect liberty of them all. The right to have been wrong and admit it. The right to unfettered association. The right to convene courts where Juries are peers of all men, decide facts, understand 'nullification' and reject unrighteous claims.
thankyou Professor - your country needs you.
Pardon the confusing metaphor, professor, but you’re seeing them out of the hand like watermelons.ReplyDelete
And you didn't mention, Bunyip, the point that you have already made elsewhere, that when the ABC first closed, and then "disappeared", the comments with the spurious justification that some of the comments were "nasty" and "racist".ReplyDelete
They were of course nothing of the kind. But even if some of them were, why weren't they just moderated out, and the comments page kept open? And why were the whole lot consigned to the memory hole?
Another example of the way people on the left prate about free speech, but don't give a damn about it.
"This cannot be allowed."ReplyDelete
What you seem to find so offensive is not that this woman can't be smeared (you've done a comprehensive job of that on this blog) but that she doesn't fit your stereotype.
I've met this person when we were interviewed on a books and writing panel by Phil Smith on ABC radio last year, and found her smart, down to earth and refreshingly honest.
She deserves every success she has achieved and her courage in taking on the shock jocks of the blogosphere is to be applauded.
Bolt's attack on her integrity was cowardly and grossly inaccurate. What's worse is that he was backed by a powerful media conglomerate. The unelected oligarchs of this empire weild much more dangerously insidious power than the Anita Heiss' of this country. It's about time they were pulled into line.
The vast majority of the attack on her integrity is spot on.
Inaccuracies where, please?
"he was backed by a powerful media conglomerate".
News went to water and wouldn't Appeal.
An Appeal it was sure to eventually win at the High Court, who will be moved to laughter at the prospect of Mordy's nonsense verdict standing.
So, Numbers, anyone trying to make a quid out of owning a newspaper is an ‘unelected oligarch’. Or do you mean anyone who owns any newspaper? Or writes a blog? Or are you only talking about people who see the world differently than you do? In a laughable kind of way, I’m genuinely apprehensive about people like you, because you are part of the zombie army that we didn’t elect to run this country.Delete
pity she didn't allow Andrew Bolt his 'refreshing honesty'.Delete
One thing oligarchs do know - when they get value for money. And when they do not..
Like when a gold bar with only 1/6th's worth of true gold claims gold bar status.
Inaccuracies? Where do you want to start? I suggest you read the judgement. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/1103.htmlDelete
If you are too lazy to do that, here's an abridged extract - one untruth of many -
BOLT: ‘‘ [Associate Professor Anita] Heiss … won plum jobs reserved for Aborigines at Koori Radio, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Arts Board and Macquarie University's Warawara Department of Indigenous Studies.''
BROMBERG: ''Each of those assertions was erroneous. Mr Bolt accepted that they were wrong because they were exaggerated. One of the positions that Mr Bolt claimed Ms Heiss had won as a 'plum job' was a voluntary unpaid position. The other two positions were not reserved for Aboriginal people but were positions for which Aboriginal people were encouraged to apply.''
"News went to water and wouldn't Appeal."
They took sound legal advice. Bolt threw a tanty, but he's still working for them. If he had integrity he would resign. That would have been Bolt's "refreshing honesty".
"you are part of the zombie army that we didn’t elect to run this country."
Wow - such power I possess. It's frightening.
She didnt sue for defamation mate. She sued because Bolt offended her chosen identity. What we are all frothing at the mouth over is there are a select few (based on race) in this country who can take you to court over being offended by speech.
As far as the 'powerful media backers' go. Pray tell who funded their case? Would it be Aboriginal legal aid? Taxpayers money? So a select Govt Law that protects a few from offence based on their race and is enforced with the depth of tax payers pockets is just evening the playing field i guess.
She could be the sweetest person in the world to meet and chat to and it would not change my opinion of her actions.
The Left used to care about freedom of speech. Now theyre the chief threat to it. Internet filters, Media inquiries... etc etc
This bloke isn't 1735099, it's Bob7 doing a copy and paste from his comments via the link in Bunyip's original text above.Delete
She is a political activist 1735099 and she censored Andrew Bolt... That's a fact. Aboriginals do not believe in the Western ideal of free speech. That's the conclusion one must draw from that fact.Delete
But it is nothing unusual for Aboriginals. It is Aboriginal custom to censor anyone that speaks out against the hierarchy.... and worse.
It is after all a tribal culture and extremely cruel... It is also the reason that my Grandmother left that foul and obscene culture and adopted the Australian Culture. Australia's culture and laws that treated her as a human being and didn't force her to marry old men and shut her mouth.
It now seems that Aboriginals seek to impose the obscenity of their cultural practices on Australian Society and law.... They mustn't have liked my Grandmother leaving them, 'eh?
Trivial, Numbers.....none of which changes Bolta's argument and the subsequent criminalisation of "offence".....a cherished Comrade milestone.Delete
"Pray tell who funded their case?"Delete
The case was run pro bono.
"The Case was run pro bono."Delete
Translation: their case was funded by activist lawyers, or discreetly by other activists - you have heard of groups like GetUp? How much did they pay to get gays into the Lodge for dinner with the PM?
No, what I find offensive is that this woman is trying to criminalize speech.Delete
Freedom of speech means the freedom to offend. It goes both ways.
Notice how you're trying to exercise that freedom here on this blog.
Even if Andrew Bolt was making racist remarks (which I would argue that he didn't), he should have the freedom to do so. Miss Heiss should also have the freedom to respond in kind. It's called a debate. Something you've been allowed to do here.
There are a whole range of issues here but the most fundamental one is freedom of speech -- a necessary part of a functioning democracy.
Sentiments aside, either you think it's important or you don't.
Who gives a stuff about so called "free speech" when youve got your own "guvmint"throwing money at you.?ReplyDelete
One can only imagine the fury our Johnno at Their ABC's Media Watch will unleash on his employer and Random House.ReplyDelete
Where would we be without this fierce defender of the ABC Charter and slayer of Statist speech shapers.
Her question is the wrong question. It is not about whether she is black enough, it is about whether something has happened to her that makes deserving of receiving some of OUR money? Having Aboriginal ancestry is not in itself good enough. How far do we take that? Do we need to compensate someone whose great great great great grandfather was killed in Auschwitz? She justifies her portion of compensation on the basis of her ancestry alone. Then she claims discrimination because we ask her to show she is deserving on some other basis than her ancestry alone. She is saying "I am discriminated against therefore I deserve that money". When we say "justify that discrimination" she says "I have been discriminated against because you ask me to justify that discrimination". Just a tiny bit circular?ReplyDelete
If this whole subject was't so disturbing, it would be worth the admission price.Delete
Ms Heiss is trading off her grandparent's aboriginality, but I can go one better than her: Some of my cousins had a somewhat indigenous mother, fully recognised as part of an indigenous family, and because I, my husband and our children are part of the extended family with my cousins, we are entitled to the benefits, even though we don't have a chromosome of indigenous DNA.
That set of cousins mostly don't claim anything, they pay their way and are as blue-eyed and freckled as the rest of us, but isn't it interesting that relationships and not DNA can entitle one to such benefits?
We are no more free to answer 'No' to Anita Heiss' question than citizens are free to answer 'No' on the ballot papers for the sort of sham elections beloved by dictators.ReplyDelete
For posterity, my post at RHA:
Aborigines are granted certain advantages as an attempt to rectify past injustices. This system is obviously open to abuse because people are, more or less, free to self-identify as Aboriginal no matter how tenuous their connection to the Aboriginal communities that suffered from past (and present) injustices. Society ought to be free to debate whether the systems we have put in place are the most appropriate way to deal with the past injustices and whether they are being used appropriately or not. We are free to do this with any other governmental scheme but, thanks in part to the work of Anita Heiss, we are not free to discuss this in regards to the schemes designed to help Aboriginal communities. So when Anita Heiss poses her question 'Am, I black enough for you?' there is only one legal, government sanctioned response possible. To publically answer in the negative is, for now, not possible in Australia. So I have my question for Anita, 'Why pose a question when you have outlawed all but a positive response?'
The first ABC comment was at 9.38am. "The comments to this entry are closed" appears after the 18th published comment at 11.27am. The published comments are all rational and polite, but disagree with the stated position. Many suggest you can't have it both ways.ReplyDelete
So disagreement is now not considered acceptable.
I have an idea - Why not have a book burning day to highlight the attack on free speech?ReplyDelete
Make it a barbecue and invite all your friends.Better still, get to a public park and invite the media. Well, perhaps not any of the Fairfax press.
BUT, your friends are NOT to bring a copy with them as this will only add to Random House's dwindling cash pile.
Instead, you the host will purchase one copy ( perhaps wait until the book is in the cheapie bin?)and if you live in Queensland invite Numbers to ceremoniously throw the first match? Ha Ha - just kidding on that last bit, you wouldn't want a wet blanket like him at a celebration: he'd probably turn the beer sour.
Hmm, no. I rather think book burnings and the like are among the special talents possessed by the other mob.Delete
In all seriousness, mate, as one who values books and flags and national dignity and personal morality and the rule of law, I think you might not really want to go down the book-burning path.Delete
Look at where it has led every time. I quite love my nation even though the current government is certifiably insane, but we'll get rid of them soon enough at a civilised election without burning books or flags or bibles or korans or armed revolution.
Stay a steady course and it will all work out in the end.
My father was born in Calabria, Italy. I try to identify as Italian but am laughed down the length of Norton and Lygon streets as being merely "half a wog".ReplyDelete
I am hurt and offended - time to go and apply for a grant!
Bear away Bunyip - the events of the last few weeks are almost more than an old digger can bear.ReplyDelete
First up we had a 10 per center on the ABC's Law Report weeping at how he felt excoriated by Bolt's awfulness.
Then, we had the IPA asking for donations to help fight the Drona's efforts to have News answer questions she never asked.
That was followed by Keith Windschuttle advising he would disregard any advice and guidance the Drona's fans might offer as to the content of Quadrant. (This required further reaching under the bed to find the money to pay for a subscription to Keith's mag).
And, as if that weren't enough, numbers asked for and received a flogging at Kev Gillett's blog, while Mark Steyn's IPA speech on free speech was referenced in a blog.
Finally, we had a bright light shone on Random House and the ABC partnering each other in "La Dance des Cockroaches".
It takes a long time to turn a fully laden tanker but, if the pressure is applied long enough, turn it will.
Whilst I agree with you totally I am wondering why there has been no attack on this attempt to muzzle the free press by the coalition.ReplyDelete
Are they scared of the inner-city "blacks" or are they scared of Bromberg?
Surely they do not agree with these neo-fascists.
LibLab.....the Establishment as represented by both Parties see the "usefulness" of such "shaping" laws.Delete
You think they are far apart? Silly boy.
Prof - a bloody outstanding essay - don't blush too much old fella.ReplyDelete
Your stance in ventilating this ghastly nightmare is inspirational. I'm so pleased that many of my fellow citizens still felt free enough to express themselves at the ABC and Random House.
Hope the picnic went the day well.
There is a sick irony for Random House in this affair. Random House is a multinational publisher owned privately in Germany by the Bertelsmann Foundation and the Mohn family (Elizabeth Mohn and children). The Mohn family created the Foundation. The Foundation is a vocal and active think-tank. It's been criticised for being neo-liberal. Currently, it is vexed about the decline of true democracy across Europe and the loss of freedom of speech around the world. Well, that's ironic. The Germans must have taken their eye off Australia lately. And off Random House Australia in particular.ReplyDelete
Pedro of Adelaide
Professor, your piece should have a wider circulation, as it effectively skewers the whole ridiculous situation the Mordy Litijus tribe have created and its end result as far as Australian freedom of speech is concerned. Can you please send it around a bit - to News Limited in general, to Blair and Bolt, to Catallaxy, to IPA and Menzies House and anywhere else you can think of?ReplyDelete
Hey, go international, to James Delingpole in the UK and others in the US etc too. The ABC should have its international reputation greatly enhanced by your expose.
Hit her where it will really hurt. The hip pocket. They can't ban Amazon.com book reviews...ReplyDelete
What about Gina Rinehart trying to force a journalist to reveal his sources? This has been described as an attack on free speech, yet bloggers of the right ignore it.ReplyDelete
Your fight is more about freedom to insult.
Bolt's articles were innaccurate and demeaning but you support him . Why?
As Voltaire once said, "I disapprove of what you say and I shall remove your right to say it."ReplyDelete
Or something like that.
I've not read the book "Am I Black Enough For You?", nor do I want to, nor would others; and why was the ABC promoting it?ReplyDelete
Surely, the book is in contempt of the law and is speaking on an issue that has been deemed out-of-bounds in legal terms. If Mr Bolt is not allowed to have an opinion on one side of the fence, why is Heiss allowed to have an opinion on the other?
"Reading between the lines", and applying the same logic displayed by the court, isn't the author in this instance guilty of contempt? Gloating publically seems unfair to me; not to mention the profiteering.
Perhaps, Bolt and the Herald/Sun should consider making a counter claim to the court against, Heiss and Random House and their ABC.
Here is a question of my own.ReplyDelete
Is the Queen Danish enough to be able to access the Danish welfare system?
The Queen is able to trace her ancestory through to William the Conqueror and hence on to the Danish King Canute. Therefore, if Heiss is black enough to access Aboriginal hand outs, by the same logic, the Queen should be able to access any handouts available to Danes. This idea of supra-nationality whereby you take on the nationality maximise benefits. Should be a real goer.
Of course for Heiss to be less than hypocritical she should renounce any benefits she derives from her white ancestory. She should resign her position and return to her community and see how she gets on.
AC of Adelaide
Prof, for a moment there I thought you were talking about the undesirable effects of drug prohibition.....ReplyDelete
wednesday, 18th April.ReplyDelete
The Wheeler Centre
176 Little Lonsdale Street
she is live, opinionated, always right and BLACK.
go tell her your thoughts!!!!
Is another issue discrepancies in her story.Those which were used in court which formed the basis of the decision - as demonstrating inaccuracy from Mr Bolt. Did she she mislead the court?ReplyDelete
Thanks Prof. for these blogs and the wonderful way you have of expressing how we feel. It is a truly saddening and maddening time in which we live!ReplyDelete
There is also this FB page (still open for comments)of the State Library of Queensland (Event) which offers the following information regarding her book..... "To celebrate the launch of Anita Heiss’ memoir Am I Black Enough for You?, Anita poses this question to a collective of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists.
The collective will present their own stories and experiences of being Black, what it means, the struggles and how it shapes their identity in Australia today.
The conversation will be followed by refreshments and book signing".
(Wonder if anyone has told her that Campbell Newman scrapped the Literary Award)
Please, don't buy the book for the burning party.ReplyDelete
I'm guessing that, by tomorrow, the entire book will have been scanned and placed, as a pdf file, onto the internet for sharing.
(So that the poor can share in the wisdom of how the rich have been discriminated against just like they have, of course. The poor need to know, as indigenous peoples, that they will likely receive sneers and lukewarm coffees from headwaiters in Paris. When this wisdom has been collected and put on paper through use of public monies, it is only right that it then be made available to its erstwhile beneficiaries freely.)
Anyway, for your party, just print out a copy, and burn that. That's what it's there for.
Good on you for calling News Ltd "craven" although I suspect it just came down to the expense of running a legal battle.ReplyDelete
Well I left my little comment on that other link. I'll post it below for posterity.... I thought it was quite good meself...ReplyDelete
Are you Black enough Anita?... Well it's quite obvious that you are not black.... I think the question that you wanted to pose, but were too literarily challenged to think of to put as your book title was.
Am I Aboriginal enough?...
Either way you pose a question that no one in Australia is now allowed to answer, because you censored anyone who will attempt to answer it..... Which in my book means you are nowhere near Australian enough.
Like a dart to the heart - "Which in my book means you are nowhere near Australian enough."Delete
In my book you are leading 1-0 with 5 minutes to go.
The question Ms Heiss should ask is what makes her more deserving of government money than some dark-skinned woman getting the heck clobbered out of her by her equally dark-skinned boyfriend in a gutter in Alice Springs.ReplyDelete
Nice one Anonymous, 10:21.ReplyDelete
Just listened to the pod cast of Ms Heiss on SPEAKING OUT the indigenous current affairs program on ABC local radio. Ms Heiss is indeed able to speak out about the court case with Andrew Bolt. Go listen to the pod cast. Pity AB is unable to speak out. The interview on the program called SPEAKING OUT would be really funny if it wasn't such a tragic title given the free speech implications of this interview.ReplyDelete
I wonder how her Austrian cousins would answer her question.ReplyDelete
Numbers is over at the Random House Heiss wins Deadly thread making a dill of himself.ReplyDelete
Guess which one he is.
You're the one who brought up his service and it's obvious the damage that your service did to you.
But that was years ago.
It's time to let go. Stop walking in circles, get rid of that enormous chip.
@ Anonymous (on Dingo's site)ReplyDelete
Your abilty at virtual psychoanalysis far exceeds your spelling. Both fail.
Deadlies link comments down the memory hole!ReplyDelete
Don't like the tone of debate around here. This place should be monitored and moderated by a responsible independent panel of senior academics who have no axe to grind, no agenda to push, and no financial or political interest. And if that doesn't get you thinking in an appropriate way you will have to deal with real courts and judges who don't look kindly on bunyip rednecks thinking improper thoughts.ReplyDelete
Meantime I can't figure out what 'select profile' means. Maybe I was taught not to think my own way out of the box.
The last thread with comments at Random House have been cleansed.ReplyDelete
Let's see if and who Anita sues, the late lamented comments being far more direct and acerbic than anything Bolta wrote.
Choose me baby......
Well, well. It appears the gutless wonders at Random House have now removed all of the 242 comments on the other "avenue to answer the big question".ReplyDelete