Bolt’s two columns today are nasty, trolling pieces that play to the worst bigotries and misunderstandings of his audience, and it’s frankly depressing that they were both published in a supposedly mainstream newspaper in 2010.

The first is his shameless muslim/arab-bashing attempt to explain the expulsion of an Israeli diplomat in response to Israel forging Australian passports (a standard diplomatic response to such an incident and one which has been undertaken by most previous Australian governments, including Howard’s) as some kind of underhanded scheme by the Prime Minister to curry favour with evil Mooooooslims in return for some private benefit down the line. There’s precisely no evidence for that ridiculous line – but, well, throw enough mud… Andrew knows perfectly well that those of his readers who are that way inclined will lap it up. Rudd’s is an evil government, Arabs are evil, of course they’d be in cahoots!

While we’re there, I was somewhat surprised by Bolt’s suggesting a moral equivalence between Australian SAS soldiers fighting in a warzone and Israeli agents operating under fake foreign passports to assassinate their enemies:

It is beyond serious doubt that it was Israeli spies who used forged Australian passports in Dubai in January when assassinating the leading weapons buyer of Hamas and co-founder of the terrorist group’s military arm.

That deserved our condemnation, but only on the grounds that Mossad is now so slack that its agents got caught out with our documents in their hands.

The killing itself hardly deserved comment – and certainly should not have been described by Foreign Affairs Minister Stephen Smith as “murder”.

After all, knocking off a jihadist boss on an arms-buying mission is morally no different from what SAS soldiers do every week in Afghanistan, hunting more jihadists there. Or do our soldiers “murder”, too, Mr Smith?

You’d have to be pretty far out there not to see the difference, I’d have thought. For one thing, if they were equivalent, why’d the Israelis have to resort to deceit and fraud to get away with theirs?

The second column is an attack on the competence of the Refugee Review Tribunal, summed up by this smear against refugee advocates having any say in its make up at all:

Both members, like Katsambanis, say the four-man panel which decides on RRT appointments includes a refugee activist with a conflict of interest.

John Gibson is also president of the Refugee Council of Australia and works as a lawyer for asylum seekers who are turned down by the RRT.

Members tell me it is grossly inappropriate for them to have their careers decided in part by an activist with a pro-asylum seeker agenda, but the Refugee Council of Australia insists that Gibson is a “man of integrity”.

Imagine! A four person panel including one person associated with one side of the argument. I presume the other three are completely neutral and have no history dealing with the issue at all.

Imagine what Gibson can do to sell out our country with that 25% majority he enjoys on the panel. It might not have worked so far, sure, but he’s probably corrupting it from the inside with his diabolical concern for human rights and due process and fair treatment for human beings even if they are from another country.

He must be stopped.

(Visited 183 times, 1 visits today)