Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter

Advertisement

Andrew Bolt

May 26, 2010

Bolt: PM, RRT all pandering to diabolical foreigners

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

Share

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.

Advertisement

Advertisement

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

56 comments

56 thoughts on “Bolt: PM, RRT all pandering to diabolical foreigners

  1. quantize

    I’m thinking i would pay to have Fairfax put Bolt behind a paywall…not ‘access to’, i mean like put in a Zoo.

  2. confessions

    [Murdoch has misread the direction of modern media, and placed too much reliance on the attachment of the 50-somethings to his right-wing commentariat.]

    That’s pretty much my view. A paywall might stem the blood loss on the balance sheet in the short term, but given the way people engage with the internet, is unlikely to be a long term success.

    Laura Tingle is behind a paywall and the only time I ever hear from her is when she’s on Lateline or Insiders. Her articles aren’t discussed online. Yet Dennis Shanahan’s Newspoll acrobatics are the stuff of internet legend.

  3. RobJ

    [I would think that he will link to opinion pieces behind the paywall to try and lure his readers into subscription.]

    No doubt but it’s clear that many of the idiots at Bolt’s blog just don’t click on the links that Bolt provides.

  4. dam buster of Preston

    Angra @ 42 Bolt will stay in front of the paywall. He generates enough hits to pay his way via advertising revenue. I would think that he will link to opinion pieces behind the paywall to try and lure his readers into subscription.

    Personally news can do what they like. It works for Crikey doesn’t it?

    If they feel that they can generate more income from paywalling their news then fine. Most online readers will just move on to free sites.

  5. RobJ

    I’ll bet 20 cents that Bolt doesn’t go behind the pay wall – seriously, who on earth would pay to post or read the bile that is frequently published there? No, whilst Bolts blog is free it attracts a fair bit of traffic thus it attracts advertising revenue.

  6. Jeremy Sear

    “You do realise this is also death knell for the PP commenters. The poor souls will have nothing to link to, nothing to read, and nothing to do all day.”

    If that’s the price we have to pay for commercially-produced bile being locked behind a paywall, I for one will gladly pay it.

Advertisement

Telling you what the others don't. FREE for 21 days.