Why Take Any Notice Of The Bible ?

Introduction

This is an essay I did for a Diploma-level subject at an Australian Bible College. It got an ‘A’, so it must be good

Why Do I Take Notice Of The Bible ?

I take notice of the Bible because it is God speaking and God speaking to me.

The Bible claims to be the written record of God speaking to humanity. If this is true, then the Bible is both authoritative and necessary for spiritual life.

By ‘authoritative’, I mean that the Bible has the right or power to command obedience (Milne, 1998, p.26). By ‘spiritual life’ I mean that the Bible instructs us how to enter into right relationship with God, that through the Bible we learn about God’s will for our lives and that the Bible instructs us how to grow in spiritual maturity and insight (Grudem pp. 116-119).

Phrases such as “God said” and “God commanded” fill the Old Testament (e.g. Gen 2:16, Ex. 9:1; Lev 12:1; Num 5:11, Josh 1:1, Judg 1:2, 2 Sam 7:4; Jer 66:1) which affirms that God’s speech and directive word was written down by His prophets and disciples beginning with Moses (Lewis and Demarest, 1987, pp. 138-140) (see Ex. 24:4 referring to Ex 20:22-23:31, Is 8:1, Jer 30:2). Similarly the New Testament (hereafter NT) attests that its own contents are the commands and words of God. For example, Jesus taught that He was bringing God’s message to Israel, that His teaching is superior to all those who preceded Him and is eternal (Matt 24:35; Matt 5:21-22; Matt 15:24).

While it is one thing for the Bible to claim to be the word of God, it is reasonable to ask how this claim can be tested. In my view the authenticity of scripture can be known by the person of Jesus, crucially hinging on His resurrection. (1 Cor 15:13-14)
As Milne puts it:

‘The resurrection is central to the entire Biblical revelation…To
deny it is to empty faith of all content and value’ (Milne, 1998, p.169)

Jesus claimed to be God. This can be seen in many ways including the unique way in which he expressed His relationship of sonship with God, His acceptance of worship and His jaw-dropping appropriation of the name of God through His famous ‘I AM’ statements (McDowell, 1986, pp. 89-102).(esp. John 8:58ff). Since only God has power over life and death then God’s action to resurrect Jesus ratifies His teaching and claims, especially since Jesus had the audacity to stake the authenticity of His teaching on His statements that He would rise from the grave Matt 12:36-42; John 2:18-22(Rom 1:3-4; Acts 2:29-36; Phil 2:9-11)

Given that Jesus’ teaching is ratified by God, let us then consider Jesus’ teaching on the Bible. I will consider this in three parts: The Old Testament (hereafter OT), the Gospels and the remainder of the NT

Jesus endorsed the entire OT as scripture, affirming the accepted categories and hence contents of “the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44 NIV). He rebuked the Pharisees for nullifying the OT by their man-made traditions and had complete confidence in its plenary inspiration, even on obscure points such as the death of Lot’s wife. He used the OT to settle points of doctrinal contention, to provoke thought about Himself and passionately defended its verbal inspiration by stressing that not a jot or tittle of the Law could be “dropped out”. He saw his own ministry as confirming and establishing the OT. (Lewis and Demarest, 1987, p. 141; Pinnock, 1985, pp. 37-39) Jesus high view of the OT is also demonstrated by how he constructed and understood the course of His Messianic ministry in relation to it. In this I agree with Milne that Jesus submitted to scripture, in distinction to Pinnock who, rightly affirming the scriptures’ witness to Jesus, then places Jesus in relative freedom to them. (Milne, 1998, pp. 41-42; Pinnock, 1985, p. 42).

As God, Jesus’ own teaching as contained in the Gospels are, by definition, scripture. There then remains to demonstrate why the remainder of the NT, written and/or sanctioned by the apostles, is also scripture.

The key to judging the apostles as inspired writers is in recognizing the special commission and empowerment given to them by Jesus. The commissioning of the apostles took place at the Passover Feast prior to Jesus’ crucifixion. They were commissioned to testify about Jesus using the teaching from the Father that Jesus had passed to them and were also promised additional truth by the agency of the Holy Spirit. After His resurrection Jesus gave the twelve a special endowment of the Holy Spirit to carry out the task of proclaiming this teaching. (John 15:27; John 17:8; John 16:12-15; John 17:20; John 20:21-23)

As Erickson points out, there is a strong sense in which many aspects of Jesus’ commissioning of the twelve apply to believers as a whole (Erickson, 1983, p. 251), but this does not permit us to ignore the localized context of the original commissioning or the manner of the training of the twelve through their three years of intimate personal engagement with Jesus. Jesus personally chose the twelve then employed rabbinical methods of training which impressed on them the fact of being groomed to be carriers of His teaching (Lewis and Demarest p. 144) Jesus also gave the twelve privileged, deeper instruction. (See Matt 13:16). Viewed thus, the Passover passage constitutes the climax of their training – a real handing-over of the task of teaching, training and proclamation.

The apostles clearly understood that they had received the delegated authority to teach with the authority of scripture. Paul distinguished between apostolic writings and the general insights available to the common believer and described his epistles as “the Lord’s command” (1 Cor 14:37; 2 Cor 13:3). He instructed his letters to be read to all believers, who were then exhorted to stand firmly on the truths therein. Those disobedient to Paul could righteously be excommunicated. Peter affirmed Paul’s writings as scripture, who for his part, submitted himself to the apostles of Jerusalem to confirm his own apostolic credentials. (1 Thess. 5:27; 2 Thess 2:13-15; 2 Thess 3:14-15; Gal 1:11-13; 2 Pet 3:16; Gal 2:1-10; 2 Peter 3:2; Eph 3:4-5 )

The connection between apostleship and authoritative teaching is keenly appreciated by Paul who takes pains to demonstrate that he too fulfills the criteria for apostleship by being an eyewitness to the resurrection, by the reception of teaching directly from Jesus the Lord and by the reception of a divine commissioning from Him (Lewis and Demarest, 1987, p.106). (Gal 1:11-15; 1 Cor 15:8-9; 1 Cor 9:1)

While not all the books of the NT were written by the apostles, all were validated by the apostles because they were written under apostolic sanction. As Warfield puts it,

“God’s authoritative agents in founding the church gave them
[the non-apostolically authored NT books] as authoritative to the
church which they founded.’ (Reformation Ink website, 2007)

Our friend has also objected that the Bible was written by ordinary people. In what way can human writings be said to originate with God? Theologically, this point addresses the concept of ‘inspiration’.

Inspiration

Milne canvasses the major conceptions of inspiration, namely dictation, accommodation and supervision (Milne, 1998, pp. 49-51). While the Bible does contain instances of divine dictation (Rev 2:8), the model which best fits the biblical data is that of ‘supervision’. This conception of inspiration sees that God exercised control over the biblical authors in their selection and redaction of words and ideas and indeed in their entire life development to fit them for the portions of scripture they were to write (Jer. 1:5; Rom 9:17).

The ‘dictation’ view cannot be reconciled to the Biblical data that shows the source of scripture are as varied as documentary research, collation, redaction, dreams, vision and memory. (Grudem, 1994, pp 81-82; Lewis and Demarest, 1987, p. 140).

The ‘accommodation’ view, on the other hand, is inadequate to explain the high view of scripture displayed by Jesus and the NT writers and sets us on a slippery slope (Erickson, 1983, p.226) ending in the kind of Biblical vandalism demonstrated by Bishop John Shelby Spong (Australian Broadcasting Commission website, 2007), whose idea of a Christian reformation begins with the disembowelment of scripture (Diocese Of Newark website 2007)

In distinction to other conceptions of inspiration, supervision provides both a holistic and high view of the divine-human partnership in scripture. The Bible states that scripture is inspired, meaning literally ‘breathed out’ by God, thus underlining its divine origin (2 Tim 3:16). Complementary to this is Peter’s description of the impetus for scripture being the Holy Spirit who ‘carries along’ the scripture writer.
( 2 Peter 1:19-20). Jesus’ endorsement of scripture validates for us that the process of human mediation of scripture does not compromise the integrity of the inspiration.

Conclusion

The veracity of the Bible hinges on Jesus. Jesus validated all scripture in existence at the time of His incarnation and, as God, provided additional scripture. He also trained, specially commissioned and empowered twelve apostles to deliver all remaining necessary truth. Admittedly, the process of inspiration is a mystery and it is difficult to know where or how the divine ends and the human starts. For example, in Exodus 34:1 Moses was commanded to chisel two stone tablets on which the Lord would write and yet in verse 28 we learn that Moses did the actual writing. All that we can say with certainty is that the origin of scripture is divine – God provides the inspiration and impetus – but that human vessels are used.

The ground for our trust in Jesus is ultimately His resurrection. This is the Father’s great attestation to Jesus, God the Son, and hence ratification of all His claims including Jesus’ endorsement of the Bible as God’s word. That is why I take so much notice of the Bible.

Finally, though, it is admitted that the Bible does not provide a formal proof of its own character. It simply provides assertions about itself. (Grudem, 1994, p. 171) The proof of the divine origin of the Bible is only found in the witness of the Holy Spirit to scripture and this is available only to those redeemed through faith in the object of its message. In the meantime, sin obscures the apprehension of the divine virtue of scripture, a condition even the redeemed must battle until He comes again.

Reference List

Australian Broadcasting Commission website (cited 17 March 2007), ‘Sunday Nights
with John Cleary: Bishop Shelby Spong’, transcript, 17 June 2001,
http://www.abc.net.au/sundaynights/stories/s815368.htm

Erickson M.J, 1983, “Christian Theology”, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids,
Michigan

Grudem W., 1994, “Systematic Theology: An Introduction To Biblical Doctrine”,
Intervarsity Press, Leicester.

Lewis G.R and Demarest B.A, 1987, “Integrative Theology”, Vol. 1, Zondervan,
Grand Rapids, Michigan

McDowell, Josh, 1986, Revised edn, “Evidence That Demands A Verdict”, Vol. 1,
Here’s Life Publishers, San Bernardin, California

Milne B., 1998, 2nd edn, “Know The Truth”, Intervarsity Press, Leicester

Pinnock Clark H., 1985, “The Scripture Principle”, Hodder And Stoughton, London

Spong, John.S., Diocese Of Newark website (cited 17 March 2007), ‘A Call For a
New Reformation’, May 1998, http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/vox20598.html

Warfield B.B, 1889, Reformation Ink website (cited 17-March 2007).
‘The Authority & Inspiration of the Scriptures’,
http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/bbwauthority.htm

What I Like Best About ‘Insiders’

What I like best about ‘Insiders’ is the Paul Kelly segment.

I love the way Barry Cassidy says ‘Now let’s hear from Paul Kelly’ and the screen is immediately filled with the giant head of Paul Kelly , his imposing grey eyebrows and that pervading aura of impending doom.

It’s just like Isaac Asimov’s ‘Foundation’ series where Hari Sheldon appears at century-wide intervals on holographic video to prophetically apply his findings of PsychoHistory to the current predicament of the Foundation Galactic Fringe and to guide and warn them, the saviours of civilisation.

Paul Kelly would make a great Hari Sheldon or Obi-Wan-Kenobe.

Anyway, I thought the avuncular prophet of the great grey eyebrow made some very penetrating remarks about Kevin Rudd in his half-term assessement of the Rudd government. For those who missed them:

PAUL KELLY: I don’t think the people are having a great love affair with Kevin Rudd, but Rudd is a most interesting political commodity. He looks like a policy wonk who’s actually a populist. He’s a new generation modernist.

Coming from a farm in Queensland, he’s got a keen understanding of the conservative nature of the Australian people, like John Howard did, and he plays to that.

He doesn’t polarise, he doesn’t polarise and divide the community. He wants to keep everybody happy. He appeals to all constituencies. He doesn’t like to take hard choices. He likes to keep all choices open.

Now this is a fascinating way to govern but you can’t govern this way indefinitely. He has brought to a peak the Howard technique of incumbency. Kevin Rudd runs a permanent election campaign every day.

Kevin Rudd – Howardesque populist conservative, leading his party to an inevitable electoral train wreck as the tensions inherent in populism pull cataclysmically apart.

Strewth – I wonder if Kelly is right ?

Anyway, what’s your favourite part of ‘Insiders’ and why ?

The Roots Of Western Misogyny (Not)

Those of TEH LEFT often criticise Christianity or the Bible for supposedly teaching that Eve was responsible for corrupting Adam and that therefore that Christianity or the Bible teach that women are the corrupters of men. In this way, TEH LEFT imply or plainly state, the Bible is a misogynistic document.

In this post I would like to argue that the Bible does not teach that Eve corrupted Adam and that therefore the Bible does not teach that women corrupt men.

An Example

The blog Still Life With Cat (SLWC) posted an article “Biblical world view legitimised: Australian feminist icon turns in grave” in which the above view, that the Bible teaches that women corrupt men, was posited. The author wrote:

I’m not really all that surprised that the 2009 Miles Franklin Literary Award has been won by what was by far the safer choice of the two front runners, a novel in which a bitter, twisted woman called Eva (geddit? geddit?) corrupts the young hero, takes away his innocence and warps his psyche for life with her nasty dangerous bent sick non-missionary sexing-on ways. She robs our hero of Paradise, that’s what she does; she pushes him into his fall from grace.

Because, as we all know, that’s what women do. The Bible tells us so.

Here’s another example on the prominent Australian Left blog, Lavartus Prodeo, in the comment by ‘Acerbic Conehead’.

A Challenge
I challenged SLWC to provide a scriptural reference that supported her assertion; she came back with Genesis 3:11-13.

And God said, Who told thee that thou [wast] naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest [to be] with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
And the LORD God said unto the woman, What [is] this [that] thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

In addition to the above scripture, SLWC adduced that the church has centuries of teachings and songs that state that Eve corrupted Adam.

Genesis 3:11-13 does not teach that women corrupt men.. The passage in question records Adam trying to blame Eve for his actions in eating the fobidden fruit, God asking Eve her side of the story who, in turn, blames the serpent.

God is unimpressed with the cowardly blameshifting of both Adam and Eve and punishes them both. Both are banished from the Garden. Nowhere does the text say that Eve corrupted Adam. Rather, both are found guilty for their own actions.

The Bible is clear that Adam was complicit in the fruit incident. From Genesis 3:6

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

Adam was there all along. He should have tried to prevent Eve from eating the fruit and he certainly should not have eaten the fruit himself. Eve at least had the partial excuse that she had been deceived by the serpent. Adam ate in the full, clear knowledge that what he was doing was wrong.

Both ate. Both did wrong. Both were punished. There is no suggestion in God’s reaction to the incident that Adam was a victim of Eve.

Who Was Responsible ?
In fact, contra the position of Still Life With Cat and many leftists, the Bible explictly ascribes responsibility for for Original Sin to Adam, not Eve (and also not the serpent). As Romans 5:12-14 puts it:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man…Adam…

So SLWC and leftist fellow travellers have actually reversed the teaching of the Bible. The Bible says Adam was the responsible party in Eden; SLWC says the Bible blames Eve. That is simply a reversal of the Biblical text.

Now, SLWC asserted in correspondence that the traditional Church has taught that Eve corrupted Adam That may be correct; but in her original post the blogger stated that the Bible teaches that Eve corrupted Adam. That is simply not true.

Eve is presented in scripture as a model of the danger of becoming spiritually deceived (see 2 Corinthians11:1-4), not as the corrupter of Adam and not as the author of Original Sin. That distinction is reserved for Adam.

The Garden Of Eden passages thus cannot be asserted to be misogynistic.

Is Mel Gibson’s , ‘The Passion Of The Christ’, Anti-Semitic ?

Introduction

I wrote this little essay around the time ‘The Passion Of The Christ’ came out. I still assert that ‘The Passion’ is not Anti-Semitic but, in light of Gibson’s anti-semitic comments he made at the time of his arrest for drunk-driving in July 2006, I was obviously wrong about Gibson’s personal anti-semitism.

Is The Passion Of The Christ Anti-Semitic ?

Many critics consider Mel Gibson’s film “The Passion of The Christ”
to be anti-Semitic.Gibson, they say, presents Jews as venal and
vicious, ugly, hook-nosed Christ-killers, deserving of hatred. One
has gone so far as to say that the depictions of the Jewish priests
and the high priest Caiaphas in particular are “exact, blatant
replicas” of sub-human Jews portrayed in Nazi propaganda films, and
that “The Passion” has a “startling fidelity to the conventions of
anti-Semitic Hitlerian cinema”. Another has written that “The
Passion” is a manifesto for incitement against Jews, the cinematic
equivalent of “yelling ‘fire’”, “little wonder that Jews across the
world are frightened by its phenomenal success”.

“The Passion” is not anti-Semitic. Jewish individuals and groups,
like all individuals and groups in the film, are presented in
spectrum of moods: positive, negative and neutral and as many are
depicted positively as negatively. The Sanhedrin is showed as split
on the legitimacy of Jesus’ trial , with some calling the trial a
sham and walking out on it. Ordinary Jewish women wail for Jesus as
he drags his cross along the Via Delarsso, Veronica wipes his
bloodstained face, Simon of Cyrene helps him and persons in the
crowds call out their support and are physically prevented from
helping (or attacking) him along the Via Dolorossa. Those Jews
portrayed negatively are in the main limited to members of the
Jewish religious establishment and their supporters, but not even
all of these.

Jews are not the only people in the film portrayed negatively. The
Roman soldiers, for example, are depicted as monstrous, sadistic
thugs and, in sum, Roman persons are depicted as uglier and crueller
than Jewish persons. In the film, in fact, the depiction of any
individual or group in the film whether Jew or Gentile depends not on
that person’s ethnicity, but on that individual or group’s attitude
toward Jesus.

In the Western genre of film the good guys wore white hats and the
bad guys black hats. Gibson employs a similar Manichean dichotomy to
tell his story. His good guys are those who are allies of, or
sympathetic or favourably disposed toward Jesus while the baddies are
those who oppose or assault Jesus or who fail to minimally consider
Jesus’ message. But the baddies are certainly not confined to Jews.
Even two of Jesus’ own followers, Judas and Peter, are shown with bad
or flawed moral character: Judas as Betrayer and Peter as Denier. It
is therefore simply incorrect to say that Jews are collectively shown
as evil simply because they are Jews. Jew, Roman or “Christian” the
film has goodies and baddies (or waverers) in each camp.

Contrary to the voices of many critics, “The Passion” does not affix blame collectively to “the Jews” or “all Jews” for the death of Jesus. The Passion does show that the group most determined to condemn Jesus to crucifixion were the chief priests of the Sanhedrin,
led by Caiaphas, in conjunction with the other most respected members of the Jewish religious establishment, the Pharisees. This is in accordance with the Gospel accounts.

The Passion also, however, ascribes responsibility for Jesus death to
all other parties. As Father Di Noia of the Vatican Doctrinal
Congregation has said:

“each of the main characters contributes in
some way to Jesus’ fate: Judas betrays him; the Sanhedrin accuse him;
the disciples abandon him; Peter denies knowing him; Herod toys with
him; Pilate allows him to be condemned; the crowd mocks him; the
Roman soldiers scourge, brutalize and finally crucify him; and the
devil, somehow, is behind the whole action.”

In other words in “The Passion”, no-one is innocent. While the
Jewish religious establishment of Jesus’ day are the prime movers in
Jesus’ death, the Romans and Christians too share guilt for what
happened to Him.

In addition, “The Passion” is quite clear in showing that Jesus’
crucifixion is the prophetic fulfilment of the Old Testament festival
of Passover. Jesus is the embodiment of the lamb in the Passover rite
whose blood sacrifice provided forgiveness for the community. In
other words The Passion shows, in agreement with Christian theology,
that Jesus death was pre-ordained by God.

This fact about the film alone should make it plain that “The Passion” does not blame “the
Jews” for Jesus death or that they should be punished or hated for
the nonsensical crime of Deicide. Jesus dies, according to “The
Passion”, because it is his God-given mission to do so. As “The
Passion” agrees, no-one forced Jesus to the cross. He went to
Golgotha in obedience to God, in love for mankind and, by act of
personal will, declined opportunities to save Himself.

Finally, however, so there can be no doubt at all that Gibson does
not blame the Jews for Jesus death, and so that it can be seen
crystal clear that Gibson is not trying to inflame anti-Semitism,
Gibson in “The Passion” has declared himself, not “Jews”, to be
personally responsible for Jesus death. It is Gibson’s hand shown in
the movie holding the spike which is driven through Jesus’ palm as He
is nailed to the cross. In this way, Gibson makes a plain statement
about his personal culpability for the death of Jesus.

When Gibson was asked by PrimeTime reporter Diana Sawyer “Who Killed
Christ?”, he replied “The big answer is, we all did. I’ll be first in
the culpability stakes here” It is a strange anti-Semite indeed who
wishes to incite hatred against Jews by blaming them for Jesus’ death
yet proclaims himself guilty of the self-same crime.

Some critics of The Passion claim that the anti-Semitic nature of the
film can be deduced by comparing the physical and moral depictions of
the Romans (supposedly shown as handsome and noble) as opposed to the
Jews (supposedly ugly and wicked). Viewers who have seen the hideous,
bestial, Roman soldiers and their commanders will immediately dismiss
this accusation.

Critics also pay particular attention to the film’s handling of
Pontius Pilate, claiming here that the film’s supposed anti-Semitism
is evident since that Pilate was an especially cruel man historically
but his cruelty is not referred to in “The Passion”. While this is
true, neither is Pilate’s cruelty referred to in the Gospel
narratives of the crucifixion. Since “The Passion”, by artistic
intention, confines itself to these final hours of Jesus life
Pilate’s historical cruelty is not germane to the story. The overall
tone of Pilate’s interactions with Jesus, if not every single word
uttered by Pilate in the film, is an accurate reflection of the
Gospel record.

Critics also point to anti-Semitic sensibilities in the movie’s crowd
scenes. In the trial before Caiaphas, for example, Jesus is
physically assaulted by a large group of Jews, many wearing prayer
shawls. This scene however is not the product of an anti-Semitic
viewpoint. The prayer shawls identify the Jews present as “religious”
and thus as members of the Jewish religious establishment or their
supporters. It was these Jews specifically that were most opposed to
Jesus, who looked for opportunities to kill him and who finally
engineered his crucifixion. This group is not meant to be identified
with “all Jews”. In other crowd scenes where the general Jewish
population are represented a wide range of attitudes toward Jesus are
present. As Prof. Peter Haas, Abba Hillel Silver Professor of Jewish
Studies at Case Western Reserve University writes

“the Jewish community watching Jesus carry his cross down the Via
Dolorossa display a whole range of emotions. Some are happy, some
are indifferent, some are horrified, some run out to help him.
Gibson doesn’t play up the anti-Jewish content. In some cases, he
rounds the edges.”

A further way in which critics claim “The Passion” magnifies and
distorts the role of Jews in Jesus’ death is a supposed inversion of
the power relationship between Caiaphas and Pilate. In “The Passion”
Pilate laments being trapped between the wishes of Caiaphas to
crucify Jesus and those of Jesus’ followers to have him released.
Pilate describes his predicament this way “If I don’t condemn him
Caiaphas will start a rebellion; if I do, his followers will.”Critics argue that Pilate wielded absolute power in Palestine at that
time and would not have feared Caiaphas in any way.

The critics’ analysis of the power relationship between Caiaphas and
Pilate is well-based but the Gospels do record that Caiaphas
nevertheless successfully manipulated Pilate to grant the crucifixion
order. Caiaphas did this by insinuating to Pilate that he, Caiaphas,
would see to it that Pilate was reported to Rome for supporting an
alternative King (Jesus) than Caesar should Pilate fail to order
Jesus crucified. (John 19:12). In this way Caiaphas does successfully
exert pressure over Pilate, albeit in a manner not related accurately
by Gibson.

Selectivity

This question of Biblical accuracy leads us to the more sophisticated
criticisms of “The Passion”, namely that Gibson has selected from
amongst the Gospel narratives in order to present the most anti-
Semitic version of events possible. There is also a parallel claim
that the extra-Biblical material inserted by Gibson was specifically
selected in order to heap vilification on Jews.

Gibson chose to insert the following material which is present in
only one Gospel narrative:

• The acceptance of generational blood guilt for Jesus’ death.by a
  Jewish crowd assembled in Pilate’s courtyard.
• Pilate scourges Jesus in an attempt to satisfy the hostility of
  the Jewish crowd enough for them to refrain from demanding
  crucifixion. They insistently demand crucifixion. Only Jesus’ death
  will satisfy them.

Gibson chose to omit the following which is present in one or more
Gospel accounts

• Jesus arrested clandestinely at night because of his popularity
  amongst the people
• Jesus arrested by a combined squad of Temple guards and Roman soldiers. The film shows the arrest detail beingcomprised only of (Jewish) Temple guards.
• Overwhelming sorrow amongst the general population immediately after Jesus’s crucifixion

Inclusion Of Anti-Semitic Writings

Gibson also chose to insert the following extra-Biblical material
found in the writings of Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824) an
Augustinian nun who lived in Westphalia, Germany. Emmerich lived in
a time and place where Jews were hated as Christ-killers and her
visions, endorsed by the Catholic Church, include horrible anti-
Semitic references including the assertion that Jews used the blood
of Christian babies in secret rituals. None of the Emmerich
material below, selected by Gibson for use in “The Passion”,
appears in the Gospels.

• <Jesus thrown over a bridge by the Jewish Temple guards
• Jesus’ shoulder is dislocated by his crucifiers
• Barabbas depicted as physically and morally monstrous, making the crowd’s choice to release him instead of Jesus even more culpable.

If we begin with Gibson’s choice of the blood guilt and pre-crucifixion scourging passages these elements certainly do heighten our awareness that the forces behind Jesus’ death were implacable.

They were prepared to accept generational blood guilt and not prepared to accept anything less than the complete annihilation of Jesus. The question is, who does Gibson finger as the forces arrayedagainst Jesus? Jews…or everybody? Over to you Mr. Gibson

“This film collectively blames humanity [for] the death of Jesus. Now there are no exemptions there. All right? I’m the first on the line for culpability. I did it. Christ died for all men for all times.”

Yes, the Jewish crowd insistently bays for Jesus’s death and accepts
blood guilt but in doing so represent the voices of all men. As Jesus
stands for the Passover lamb, the Jewish voices here stand for the
voice of all mankind. “We are guilty”.

In a similar way, the overall effect of Gibson’s selections from the
Gospels and his use of the writings of Catherine Emmerich are to
emphasise the amount of suffering Jesus experienced and the guilt and
culpability of all. The only exception I can see to this is the
omission of Roman guards from the arrest detail. This is a glaring
error and director Gibson needs to explain it.

In relation to Emmerich, Gibson does not follow her visions as
collected in Dolorous Passion slavishly, and at many points he
chooses details that conflict with Emmerich’s account. Nor is his
choice of extra-Biblical material limited to Emmerich. Some is drawn
from wider Catholic tradition, for example the story of the woman
Veronica, who ran out of the crowd and gently wiped sweat from the
face of the exhausted Jesus with her veil on which remained imprinted
his visage.

Nevertheless, given that Emmerich is so un-selfconsciously anti-
Semitic, Gibson’s use of her visions raises valid questions about
Gibson’s own views toward Jews. Raising further concern is that Mel
Gibson’s father is an unabashed anti-Semite who blames Jews for all
manner of nefarious conspiracy.

If Gibson is an anti-Semite, however, this is not shown in his film.
“The Passion” does finger the Jewish religious establishment as the
prime movers behind Jesus death, but this is in accordance with the
Gospel record. The Passion, in accordance with Christian theology,
holds all men accountable for the death of Christ and shows that this
death was pre-ordained by God as Jesus’ saving mission on behalf of
humanity. Jews are depicted as neither less nor more venal or ugly or
morally flawed than anybody else and the film crticises even those of
Jesus’ inner circle including Peter. Finally Gibson has made clear
that he holds himself as guilty as anybody for the death of Jesus by
filming himself in the act of crucifying Jesus and by very plain
statements to this effect on the public record.

It is a strange anti-Semite indeed who wishes to incite hatred
against Jews by blaming them for Jesus’ death yet proclaims himself
guilty of the self-same crime.

But could Gibson still be an anti-Semite even if an unconventional
one? He carries a relic of the anti-Semitic nun Emmerich and publicly
honours his father, Hutton, even in the context of Hutton’s anti-
Semitic remarks. Peggy Noonan of Reader’s Digest asked Gibson whether
or not he believed the Holocaust was historical fact because of
reports that Mel’s father doesn’t believe Hitler killed 6 million
Jews. Gibson told Noonan: “My dad taught me my faith, and I believe
what he taught me. The man never lied to me in his life.” Noonan also
asked Gibson “You’re going to have to go on record. The Holocaust
happened, right?” Gibson told her:

“I have friends and parents of friends who have numbers on their arms. The guy who taught me Spanish was a Holocaust survivor. He worked in a concentration camp in
France. Yes, of course. Atrocities happened. War is horrible. The
Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were
Jews in concentration camps…”

Some critics consider Gibson’s responses to Noonan to be shameful, amounting to little more than a nuanced version of Holocaust denial. In his PrimeTime interview, though, Gibson plainly said that the Holocaust was the result of an evil
racist pogrom

“You know, do I believe that there were concentration camps where
defenseless and innocent Jews died cruelly under the Nazi regime? Of
course I do. Absolutely. It was an atrocity of monumental
proportion… It’s like, it’s obvious. They’re killed because of who
and what they are.”

In other interviews, Gibson categorically denies holding anti-Semitic
beliefs pointing out that anti-Semitism is anathema under many Papal
Councils and Encyclicals and that racism is incompatible with
Christian faith. Gibson’s views on the Holocaust appear then to be
largely mainstream with some question as to whether he agrees with
the generally accepted figure of 6 million killed. If Mel Gibson does
not do enough for some critics to criticize his father Hutton for anti-
Semitism then in all probability it is due to Mel’s desire to honour
his father in accordance with the Ten Commandments or out of filial
respect but neither Gibson nor his film “The Passion Of The Christ”
are anti-Semitic.

Jewish community opinion about this film is not
nearly unanimous. It is not hard to find Jews who do not consider
either Gibson or “The Passion of The Christ” anti-Semitic. A cursory
“Google” search returns a number of comments in this vein. For
example, Professor Haas, quoted above, Rabbi Norbert Samueson of
Arizona State University “For the most part, the persecutors of Jesus
are Romans- especially the soldiers – and not Jews” and Abraham
Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League “The film,
per se, is not anti-Semitic”. Critics too sure of their ground would
do well to consider remarks such as these.

Sources

Mike Davis and Robert Jay Lifton, “And the Oscar for Bigotry
Goes to…”, March 9, 2004, AlterNet,
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18084. Last Accessed April 1, 2004

Phillip Adams, “Passion at the forefront of religious bigotry”, March 23, 2004, “The Australian” News Interactive, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9043496%5E12272,00.html, Last Accessed April 1, 2004

Zenit News Agency, “Mel Gibson’s “Passion”: On Review at the Vatican.
Exclusive Interview With Father Di Noia of the Doctrinal
Congregation”, Vatican City, December 8, 2003,
http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=45863, Last
Accessed April 1, 2004

Reuters, “Gibson denies ‘Passion’ is anti-Semitic”, CNN
Entertainment, February 15, 2004, http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWB-
IZ/Movies/02/14/gibson.passion.reut/, Last Accessed April 1,
2004 Marilyn.Karfeld, “Mel Gibson’s ‘Passion’ elicits strong
reaction”, Cleveland Jewish News Internet Edition, March 10,
2004, http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/articles/2004/03/10/ne-
ws/local/cpassion0305.txt, Last Accessed, April 1, 2004

Philip A. Cunningham, “Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ: A Challenge
to Catholic Teaching”, Center for Christian-Jewish Learning at
Boston College, February 25, 2004, http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-
elements/texts/reviews/gibson_cunningham.htm, Last Accessed April 1, 2004

Gordon Moyes, “The Crucifixion of Mel Gibson”, Wesley Mission, Sydney
Australia, http://www.wesleymission.org.au/ministry/sermons/040224.asp 24th
February, 2004, Last Accessed April 1, 2004

Peter J. Boyer, “The Jesus War: Mel Gibson’s Obsession”, The New Yorker, September 15,
2003, http://www.wcnet.org/~bgcc/gibson.htm, Last Accessed, April 1,
2004 “Mel Gibson’s Holocaust Comments Spark Controversy”, NewsMax, Feb. 5, 2004, http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/5/110921.shtml, LastAccessed, April 1, 2004

“Pain and Passion. Mel Gibson Tackles Addiction, Recovery and the
Controversies Over His New Film” ABCNEWS.com, Feb. 17, 2004, http://-
abcnews.go.com/sections/Primetime/Entertainment/mel_gibson_passion_0-
40216.html Last Accessed April 1, 2004

Not Your Average Constituent

OzCar Runs Over Some Very Careless Boys and Girls

The OzCar Affair (also at Crikey and New Matilda) has already caused Malcolm Turnbull terminal damage and threatens to take out, or make unelectable, the entire top echelon of the Liberal Party.

Malcolm Turnbull and Eric Abetz have been trucking in a forged email from the computer of Treasury Official Godwin Grech, using it, before thay realised it was a forgery, as a basis of corruption charges against Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, original questions coming on June 4, 2009

Furthermore, it is known that Godwin Grech has been leaking information to the Liberals for 18 months, specifically to Malcolm Turnbull and Eric Abetz. It seems certain that Joe Hockey has also been the recipient of these leaks. Given the above it is almost inconceivable that the remainder of the Liberal Party royalty and recent ex-royalty (e.g Nick Minchin, Tony Abbott, Julie Bishop, Christopher Pyne, Peter Costello) were not aware that Grech was leaking to their leadership group. As such all are tainted by the scandal.

Swan’s Goose Not Cooked…Yet

In this post, however, I want to focus on the (so far) luckiest man in the whole OzCar/Utegate Affair, Treasurer Wayne Swan.

A range of commentators from George Megalogenis, regarded as non-partisan (on Insiders 21st June), Gary Rundle of Crikey (of the left), Phillip Coorey of the Sydney Morning Herald (on the right) and others (’Red’ Kerry O’Brien of the ABC; David Crowe, Aust. Fin. Review below) have noted that Swan was mighty economical with the facts in Parliament when he described assistance rendered by Treasury to John Grant as no different to any other person. It is only the minority among the commentariat (e.g Laura Tingle, Australian Financial Review on 24-Jun) who agree with Swan in regard to Grant’s assistance and that therefore Swan has absolutely no case to answer in regard to misleading Parliament.

Swan’s actual answer in Parliament to a question from Turnbull on June 4 was:

It is the case that Mr Grant made representations to my office, and he was referred on to the SPV, just like everybody else.

(see p.69 of transcript)

Why Utegate Doesn’t Matter

Many agree with John Warhurst, Professor Of Political Science at ANU, who says that Grant clearly got top-shelf assistance from Treasury, that this assistance was better than that afforded to others because of Grant’s relationship with Swan/Rudd, but that the affair is trivial and, notably, Grant did not end up with anything he was not entitled to, that this trivial kind of ‘help-for-mates’ has been part and parcel of politics forever and that therefore it does not merit public concern. In this camp is Kerry-Anne Walsh, SMH/Insiders 28-Jun

Why Utegate Does Matter

In my opinion, help-for-mates, regardless of financial outcome, is an abuse of position and therefore Swan deserves a Parliamentary censure. Grant only got his magic carpet ride through the Ozacar application process because he has donated goods and money to Rudd. Help of any kind from Parliamentarians should not be for sale.

That Man Grech

Utegate exploded with the testimony of Godwin Grech, Treasury Official in charge of OzCar at the Senate Economics Legislation Commitee (Reference: Car Dealership Financing Guarantee Appropriation Bill 2009) hearing on 19th July 2009.

Grech testified that he may have seen an email from Andrew Charlton, a member of Rudd’s staff in which he says that Rudd personally requested assistance be provided to John Grant, a Motor Dealer from Ipswich, in accessing the Ozcar financing scheme. That email, now known to be forged, is here. Turnbull said, greatly to his error, that the email proved that Rudd had misled Parliament and that Rudd should resign.

At the same Senate Estimate Commitee hearing, Grech tabled a sheaf of email correspondence between Treasury Officials and Swan’s office on his dealings with Grant and gave detailed testimony on the emails and his actions in relation to Grant. Contrary to the purported email from Charlton, the emails tabled by Grech are not disputed as factual.

The referral of Grant’s request for assistance to Grech came in the following manner: On Feb 20, ALP Backbencher and Grant’s MP, Bernie Ripoll, contacted Swan about Grant. Swan rang Grant, spoke to him for a couple of minutes, then asked his office to contact Grech. Andrew Thomas from Swan’s office does so and Grech calls Grant on the telephone. At 5:19pm that same afternoon Grech emails Swan’s Office saying he has contacted Grant and what he (Grech) intends to do for him, whereupon Andrew Thomas ALSO calls Grant and at 7:27pm Thomas emails Swan telling him “‘Treasurer, both Godwin Grech and I have spoken to John Grant this evening.” A week later (Feb. 27), Thomas from Swan’s office receives updates from Grech about the Grant file and emails Grech saying ‘Godwin, we really appreciate this. Just so you are aware these emails are going through to the Treasurer’s home number’.

So, in one day Grant contacts his local MP and gets personal phone calls from the Treasurer, Mr Swan, a member of Swan’s personal staff, Mr. Andrew Thomas and the Treasury Official in charge of the Ozcar facility, Mr. Grech. Most of this contact is squeezed into a two-hour period after hours on a Friday evening.

Wow! What service. If I was Grant I would feel well looked after indeed.

Not Your Average Constituent

Of all applicants, ONLY Grant got a personal phone call from the Treasurer, though other cases were bought to the Treasurer’s notice.

Of all applicants, ONLY Grant received phone calls from the Treasurer, the Treasurer’s personal staff and Mr. Grech on the same day.

Of all applicants, ONLY progress on Grant’s was emailed directly to Swan (NB different to fax) see Coorey, “Rudd swerves on car scandal”, SMH .

Grech was especially informed by Andrew Thomas in Treasury that Grech’s progress reports were being sent to the Treasurer’s home fax. Grech testified in Senate Committe that this is the ONLY occasion that he was informed that emails were going to Swan’s personal fax. The implication is that Swan is especially interested in Grant’s application.

Grech testified that the manner and style of approach and correspondence from Thomas made it clear to Grech that Grant’s file was a priority case and should be proactively managed with the aim of a favourable outcome for Grant if at all possible. From the Senate Estimate Committee hearing:

Mr Grech —Senator, actually I have been in the public service now for 20 years, and I take my work very seriously. When a Minister’s office—I previously also worked in Prime Minister and Cabinet—so when the PMO or the Treasurer’s office approach you with something, you give it priority. In the case of Mr Grant, the referral came from Andrew, and it was made clear to me that it was something that had to be managed and that is what I tried to do.

It was this manner and style of correspondence from the Treasurer’s office that left Grech in no doubt that Grant was, in Grech’s now famous words ‘Not Your Average Constituent’

Mr Grech — I was certainly left with a general understanding that Mr Grant had some relationship of some type with at least the Treasurer.

The relationship, as we now all know is that Grant donates a ute to Rudd and that he is a member of a club that does fundraising for Rudd, the Brisbane ‘51 Club’. Members of the 51 Club also claim Rudd met Grant in China on two occassions and conversed about Grant’s business dealings. Rudd has spoken at the 51 Club on one occasion. The 51 Club also visited Rudd in Canberra and received a very nice personal tour of Parliament House including areas off-limits to the general public.

Grant’s Rolls-Royce handling by Swan is a direct result of Grant’s favours for Rudd both personally and through the 51 Club, which Rudd honours with occasional personal visits.

Further indications that Grant received special consideration from Grech based on Swan’s wishes are found in that Grech raised Grant’s file with Ford Credit in a meeting in which Ford Credit was seeking access to $500 million of Treasury finance. It is true that Grant was not the only dealer discussed at that meeting but Grant’s file was the only one “substantially discussed” in the words of Greg Cohen, Ford Credit’s Managing Director.

Prior to the meeting, Grech identified Ford Credit as a ‘fallback position’ for Grant. Afterwards, Ford Credit speedily contacted Grant to see how he could be accommodated despite the fact that they did not handle any other Kia dealerships. Ford Credit were willing to make an exception for Grant. It seems naive to think that this was completely unconnected with their hope to access half a billion dollars in Government money after a meeting in which Grant’s file was ’substantially discussed’.

Cohen testified that ONLY Grant’s phone number was provided to Ford Credit despite three or four other dealers being mentioned in that meeting of Feb. 23rd

From the above it is plain that Swan has a prima facie case to answer of ‘help-for-mates’ (nepotism) and of misleading Parliament.

Joe Hockey gave an accurate summary of the events of Feb 20 and Feb 23 in Parliament Question Time on 22nd June.

Swan’s Response

In this section I will examine Swan’s response to criticism that he was economical in the truth with his Parliamentary answer to questions on favouritism to Grant in the OzCar affair.

To make it plain, the criticisms that Swan faces are over process, not outcomes. All agree and it is a matter of fact that Grant did not receive any money from Ozcar despite Swan’s championing of Grant’s file.

1. All Treasury Emails Go To Swan’s Home Fax

The Opposition made a big deal of the fact that updates on Grant’s file were sent to Swan’s Home Fax. What the Opposition neglected to mention was that Swan has a standard work practice that ALL Swan’s emails are diverted to his home fax when Swan is out of Canberra and actually at home.

What Swan did not mention was that of all applications, it was ONLY Grant’s that Treasury Official Andrew Thomas specifically indicated to Grech was going to Swan’s home fax. This is a clear signal to Grech that Swan has a personal interest in the progression of Grant’s file.

The Opposition over-egged the ‘home fax’ issue. Swan side-stepped it.

2. Coalition-Friendly Car Dealers Got The Same Treatment As Grant

In Parliament and outside, Swan emphasisied that a car dealer represented by Kay Hull, National MP for Riverina also received very attentive service from Treasury Officials and Grech.

In Parliament Swan read from emails between Treasury and his office which showed that within 11 minutes, Swan’s office responded to Hull’s request for assistance for the dealer by contacting Treasury (not Grech initially), but within three days Grech (the official in charge of Ozcar) had spoken to Capital Finance and the dealer, inviting the dealer to stay in touch about the progress of his finance and had reported that fact to Swan’s office.

While this certainly shows attentive service to Kay Hull’s constituent, it differs from that given to Grant in a few respects:
- The Treasurer did not ring Kay Hull’s consitutent
- No member of Swan’s staff contacted the car dealer
- Grech was not indirectly informed by Treasury of any personal interest by Swan in the matter
- Swan’s office did not directly approach Grech.
- Grech did not raise Kay Hull’s constituent in half-billion dollar financial negotiations
- Kay Hull’s constituent did not get his mobile phone number passed to financiers by Grech.
- Grech has testified that the style and manner of Swan’s office approach to OzCar was different to that in Grant’s case. Kay Hull’s man was a normal constituent, Grant is not.

Senator CAMERON (ALP) —Mr Grech, you said earlier in relation to John Grant and the matters that have been raised in relation to his situation that you got the impression he was not your average constituent.

Mr Grech —Yes.

Senator CAMERON —Did you get the same impression from the referred-on Kay Hull’s inquiry—that it was special because it was coming from the Treasurer’s office?

Mr Grech —No, Senator

Hull’s constituent was Swan’s best example of ‘everyone treated the same’, but the record shows that Hull’s constituent, while well attended, did not have the same superlative level of attention as Grant.

3. Motor Traders Association Says Grant Treated No Different To Anyone Else

Swan and Grant made much use of the testimony of Mr. Michael Delaney, Executive Director of the Motor Traders Association Of Australia, who said that “The treatment that Mr Grant, a member of mine, got was no different from the treatment all my other members got,”

As Kerry O’Brien pointed out, Mr. Delaney while sincere, cannot be aware of the interactions between Swan, his office and Treasury which form the substance of the questions directed against Mr. Swan.

Swan knows this. Swan used Delaney’s evidence as a smokescreen. But it doesn’t address the real issues of inquiry or delegitimize Grech’s testimony.

4. Look, I Swear, Everyone was Treated Exactly The Same

On June 22, Swan released 23 other emails between car dealers, Treasury and his office, purporting to show that all dealers received the same level attention from Government and Treasury and Grant’s treatment was not special.

Analysing these, David Crowe, Chief Political Correspondent for The Australian Financial Review on 24-Jun-2009 ran an article, ‘Some Dealers Are More Equal Than Others’ which patently shows that not every enquiry from a car dealer about Ozcar was treated the same.

Victorian car dealer Graeme Nelson contacted his local MP, Sharman Stone on March 31 who then contacted Mr. Swan. Absolutely nothing has happened for Graeme Nelson since.

Cyril Campbelj spoke to his Liberal MP Bruce Bilson. Bilson speaks to Grech on April 3rd. No-one from Treasury or Government contacts Campbelj.

On Feb 12th Liberal MP Rowan Ramsey wrote to Mr. Swan about car dealer Boolearoo Agencies. No-one from Treasury of Government has contacted Boolearoo Agencies.

Two other dealers who did benefit from concerted attention, though not to the level of Grant were a Sydney dealer, believed to be Hunter Holden in Maxine McKew’s electorate who approached McKew and Rudd at an electorate function on April 17th and an unidentified dealer who Grech dealt with around April 28th.

The Hunter Holden approach resulted in Rudd referring to Andrew Charlton who referred to Treasury. None got a phone call from the Treasurer, none got phone calls from Treasury officials, none had their phone numbers passed to finance companies, none were ’substantially discussed’ in high-level finance meetings , none were flagged with Grech as being sent to the Treasurer’s home fax. They were ordinary constituents treated ordinarily, unlike Grant.

Swan is kidding himself if he thinks all dealers were treated equally and no-one got better or worse than Grant. Or rather he is trying to kid us … and Parliament.

5. Refusing To Answer Questions

Rudd and Swan, as far as possible have tried to direct attention away from Grech’s testimony detailing exactly how Grant received special attention as a result of being underlined to him by Swan’s office as ‘Not Your Average Constituent’.

The 7:30 Report interview Rudd did with Kerry O’Brien on 22nd June is a great example of this. I will paraphrase it here. I encourage you to read it yourself.

O’Brien: The fake email is not the only thing that matters is it ?
Rudd: Incorrect. It’s totally about the fake email.
O’Brien: It’s not
Rudd: It is.
O’Brien:What about Grech’s testimony regarding Swan.
Rudd: Grech is an unreliable witness. Let’s talk about the forged email.
O’Brien. Okay…
[next question]
O’Brien:Now, about Mr. Swan
Rudd: That forged email is a shocker isn’t it! Michael Delaney puts us in the clear.
O’Brien: No he doesn’t.
Rudd:Swan gets heaps of emails about car dealers, not just Grant. That forged email is the most important thing anyway.
O’Brien: Swan rang Grant personally.
Rudd: That’s irrelevant. We’re trying to save the economy. And the forged email…
O’Brien: Grech’s testimony about Swan is compelling.
Rudd: Grech is unreliable. Kay Hull got help too. So that proves Swan is in the clear.
O’Brien: I’ve read the Hull emails. They don’t prove Swan is in the clear.
Rudd: Swanny is a good bloke. He wouldn’t do anything naughty. I’m vewy hurt. Pout.
O’Brien: Thx
Rudd: KThxBi

On ABC Radio’s AM program on 25-June, Swan breath-takingly told interviewer Emma Griffiths that she was not asking the right question as she pressed Swan on the point of ‘how many other car dealers did you personally call’ and claimed it was irrelevant. Swan busted a gut to avoid answering directly and giving the straight answer which is ‘zero’.

EMMA GRIFFITHS: Put it on the public record who else you spoke to. What other car dealers?

WAYNE SWAN: Well I have put it on the public record that I spoke to Mr Grant, Emma, but that is simply irrelevant…

EMMA GRIFFITHS: But you’re not answering the question Mr Swan.

WAYNE SWAN: Well it’s not exactly the right question. That is irrelevant Emma to the fact or the claims that have been put forward that somehow some special treatment was given to Mr Grant.

The above interview was Mr. Swan’s only media interview for the week. It was quite apparrent as noted by Barry Cassidy on Insiders, 28-June, that Swan, along with Senator Abetz, had decidedly ‘gone to ground’. For a man with nothing to hide Swan was doing a good impression of hiding.

Somewhat Scathed

Despite the massive attention very correctly and properly placed on the forged email and Turnbull/Abetz’s prior knowledge of its existence, voters have given Swan a black eye over the matter, a nett 20% saying they had formed a more negative opinion on him, though only 48% said they believed Grant got preferential treatment in the Ozcar process. Send the bludgers here for a good read!

As Phillip Coorey noted, if the Coalition had not overreached to try and kill Rudd on this matter they could have pulled a great deal more hide off Mr. Swan. Swan is one lucky duck goose swan bloke indeed.

Conclusion

Grant received treatment better than any other applicant to OzCar. This treatment has come about because of Grant’s relationship with Rudd as a donor and fundraiser for Rudd. Swan has indeed misled parliament about this. He deserves a Parliamentary censure.

Last word from Mr. Grech on page 30 of the Estimate Committee transcript that exploded into Utegate:

Senator ABETZ—Was it indicated to you, Mr Grech, that there was any particular interest, or that this
man, John Grant, may be particularly well-known to the Treasurer?
Mr Grech—I certainly had the impression that he was not your average constituent.

Utegate On Other Blogs
Lavartus Prodeo has Fresh OzCar Thread and Kevin Rudd=Uteman, So He’s Done For

Quiggin has Costello’s Moment ?

Tim Blair was momentary hopeful in Await The Great Tailgate Debate

Joe Tripodi Ate My Nuclear Reactor

Tripodi’s Power Sale Trip Costs $290,000

The Sydney Morning Herald of May 12 carried the story of Joe Tripodi’s recent round the world junket-quest to flog off the NSW Electricity Utilities to anyone with a Platinum Amex.

A delegation led by NSW Finance Minister Joe Tripodi racked up a $290,000 bill on an international trip while spruiking the state’s power assets to potential investors. The group ran up the estimated bill on the 27-day jaunt, which the opposition claims is the most costly ministerial trip in the Labor government’s history.

The website, Investsmart, brought a smile to my face with its ascerbic summary of Joe’s junket in Electric Joe goes global, but buyers are just next door

Joe has busted a gut, eating his way across four continents while scouring the world for potential buyers for our three state-owned electricity retailers. For 26 days, he and his entourage were forced to endure countless business-class airline trips across Asia, Europe, North America and the Middle East, visiting “potential” buyers in 11 countries.

Tripodi justified the expense by claiming he attracted some hot interest, but those stick-in-the-muds at Investsmart point out that overseas interest is likely to be extremely limited and the most likely buyers are at home.

In the mid-1990s a national electricity market was formed and the idea was that all state governments would sell their generating and distribution assets. Victoria, under Jeff Kennett, was first out of the gate, selling all its power industry to mostly North American operators for close to $14 billion.

They all paid over the odds, just to get a foothold, in the mistaken belief they could snaffle the NSW and Queensland industries soon after. When it was clear that wasn’t going to happen, most sold out at huge losses a few years later.

Given that experience, even in ordinary times it is unlikely foreign bidders would even be slightly interested apart from the Chinese-owned Tru Energy, which has a power station just south of Wollongong at Tallawarra.

But Origin and AGL are so far clear of the pack in terms of buying power, it’s not funny. For a start, they both have the home-town advantage, with huge operations across the country.

Given the above, it seems likely that Barry O’Farrell is right and Tripodi has simply decided he would like to take a massively expensive tax-payer funded holiday. As O’Farrell points out, given Tripodi’s central importance in providing the numbers for Nathan Rees’ Premiership, Tripodi can do whatever the hell he wants. His current objective seems to be to set international records for consumption of Lobster Thermidore.

Tripodi’s response to criticism of the massive expenditure also included the breath-taking assertion that the amount spent was trivial because in Tripodi’s words:

the trip would be repaid many times over when the assets were sold.

Well, yes, since the Electricity assets on the block are valued at approx. $6 billion, even the voracious Tripodi would be hard-pressed to gorge his way through even 10% of that in a month.

But Tripodi’s implied mathematics of Ministerial Travel indicates that he views the state of New South Wales as his personal gigantic lunch-box which can can eat as much of as he likes, as long as he leaves at least some over.

Imagined Convesation between Joe Tripodi and Joe Hockey:

Tripodi: G’Day Joe glad you could make it over. Fancy a Nuclear Reactor ?
Hockey: Don’t mind if I do
BOTH: NOM NOM NOM burrrp NOM NOM NOM belcchhh NON NOM. ahhhh
Tripodi: ‘nother one ?
Hockey: Yair. Nice guts you’ve got there.
Tripodi: Thx.
BOTH: NOM NOM etc.
Tripodi: ‘Nothery, Joe? How about a school computer ?
Hockey: Aren’t they expensive?
Tripodi: You kidding? The education budget is BILLIONS. There’s HEAPS.
Hockey: Give us ten.
BOTH: NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM …..
Much later
Tripodi: …NOM NOM NOM. Bloody Hell I’m hungry. Chuck us a Taxi.
Hockey: Can’t move.
Tripodi: Wuss. Arr NOM NOM. pause. Where ya goin’ Joe ?
Hockey: Gotta go. Off to berate the Unions about waste and nepotism.
Tripodi: Oath! Give ‘em a rocket from me too. Bludgers.
Hockey: Aargh. My skull has spontaneously collapsed and is now free-floating in a universe of lard.
Tripodi. LARD! YUM. (Eats Hockey).

Tripodi is shameless. His only utility is as a living example of the benefits of abolishing State Government. Here’s a precis of some of his nest-feathering antics, as described by the Labor Tribune, organ of the Union movement in “Workers Deserve Better Than Tripodi” and, just lately, misusing his parliamentary allowances

Of further interest, the article above describes the close factional relationship between Joe Tripodi and Mark Arbib, right-hand man and kingmaker for Kevin Rudd. Arbib’s orchestration of the despicable NSW Right in my view makes Arbib unsuitable to be within two thousand light years of government.

Arbib, The Destroyer Of The Rudd Government

I predict Arbib’s unparalled ability to hide, fix and evade will load the Rudd government with truck-loads of artfully concealed scandal with will emetically discharge sometime during Rudd’s second term. Rudd (Bob Carr-like) will perceive the end and triumphantly stand aside for Gillard and become UN Undersecretary for Disarmarment. Gillard will be forced to eat the corpses of the Arbib-Rudd horror years and will be impeached and go insane.

Meanwhile, Tripodi still NSW Minister for Finance, but now in the Liberal Party, Arbib and Rudd will meet regularly in Vienna for “top-level discussions” about Australia’s nascent Nuclear Industry at ludicrous tax-payer expense.

That Tripodi-Arbib relationship:

Tripodi was a founding member of the “Terrigals”; a cabal of senior Rightwingers that included Mark Arbib, Eddie Obeid, Michael Costa, Morris Iemma and the now cannibalised Carl Scully. Carr didn’t want Tripodi in the NSW cabinet.

When In Rome

Recently, The SMH then followed up with a Freedom Of Information request for details on the expenditure. Their story “Salesman Got A Good Night’s Rest” showed the most exorbitant single instances of spending were enjoyed not by Mr. Tripodi (who no doubt ate and slept well on the trip) but by the Treasury Secretary Mr Shur and Deputy Secretary Mr. Cosgriff.

Mr Cosgriff spent £306 ($600) on one night at the Mandarin Oriental and $US1423 ($1800) for four nights and services at the New York Palace, while Mr Schur spent $872 for two nights at the Grand Hyatt in Hong Kong and $590 at the Beijing Hilton.

More Career Highlights Of Joe Tripodi

Tripodi’s personal friend and a one-time Labor Branch President, Joe Scimone, was appointed to a $200,000 job in one of Joe’s portfolio areas, NSW Maritime, in Jan 2008. At the time Scimone was under investigation by ICAC regarding the filthy ALP property developer scam being operated out of Wollongong Council. Tripodi said he did not know that his friend was under investigation by ICAC at the time of the appointment and presumably was unaware or did not care that Scimone was or had been the subject of a sexual harrassment charge during December 2005. Details here

The Wikipedia page on Tripodi lists a range of odious incidents from his parliamentary career, none of which it seems have quite ’stuck’ or been translated into successful prosecutions.

Eric Abetz Colonises Neptune

Lavartus Prodeo carried a good post and entertaining commentary thread about Eric Abetz and his long-running and somewhat bemusing campaign to address the issue of ‘audience balance’ at the ABC program Q&A.

The issue can be traced through the Hansard of the Standing Senate Estimate Committee for Environment, Communications and The Arts in its sittings for ‘Broadband, Communications and The Digital Economy Portfolio’.

In constructing this post I have read the relevant sections of the transcripts for:
26-May-2008 (Hereafter: May 2008)
20 October 2008 (Hereafter Oct)
23 Feb 2009 (Hereafter Feb)
25 May 2009
(Hereafter May 2009)

Mark Scott, Managing Director Of The ABC, represented the ABC at the Committee Meetings

The Coalition And The ABC

The Coalition developed a hatred for the ABC at some point during the leadership of John Howard and viewed it, quite literally, as their enemy.

This drove Howard to try to transform the ABC into an echo chamber for his business-corporate agenda or at least intimidate it into silence as regards to critique. Part of Howard’s strategy for this was to appoint personal friends, ideological fellow travellers and those who hate, fear and despise the ABC (e.g Keith Windshuttle and Janet Albrechtson) to the ABC board. Another part was to harass the ABC via publicly-funded vexatious investigations, forcing the ABC to continually defend itself against allegations of bias. Howard’s most intense attacks on the ABC focused on its critique of Howard’s support for the US propaganda line on the necessity to invade Iraq.

Fear and hatred for the ABC lives on in the Liberal Party and the harassment policy and character assasination live on in within it with Mr. Abetz the designated spear carrier.

Keeper Of The Flame

Abetz has continued the policy of harassment of the ABC via tendentious questioning and orders for supply of detailed yet useless information and statistics through the Standing Senate Estimate Committee for Environment, Communications and The Arts.

In the absence of any substantive issues on which to crticize the ABC, Abetz’s harassment of the ABC has degenerated into a rather comical pursuit of supposed bias into the composition of the audience for the program Q&A. He ends of looking and sounding like a garden-variety street crazy stuffed into a suit and given endless public money to investigate exactly how the Illuminati are using Martian Space Stations to inject Flouridated Gamma Rays into Parliamentary Beef Stroganoff.

What Are Them Damn Commies Up To Now ?

At some stage in 2007 or 2008 Abetz became concerned that the audience of the Q&A audience did not contain enough Coalition supporters.

Why he considers this to be the fault of the ABC is not entirely clear. Registration for audience participation is free to anybody and the producers of Q&A ensure the audience (as well as the Panel) contains a ‘plurality of views’ (Scott) by requesting the prospective audience member to indicate voting intention on the registration form. It is not compulsory to answer the question. (May 2008, pp. 67-69)

Scott explained the intention of the ‘voting intention thus:

‘The aim is not to come up with a precise demographic map of the country but to ensure that the principal relevant viewpoints that exist in the community are represented in that audience, so that is why we do the questioning.’

Abetz requested the audience breakdown figures and, after receiving them felt he has uncovered a noteworthy example of ABC bias, discovering that in one program, the most ALP-audience-heavy, the declared voting intention was 47% ALP, 26% Green and 10% Coalition. The figure for the whole of 2008 was 32% ALP, 24% Coalition, 17% Green. (Oct. p.154).

Focusing on the single ‘worst’ example he could find, rather then the whole year figures, Abetz then asked Scott what he had done to redress the supposed issue of ‘imbalance’ (NB This is the FREAKING audience he’s worried about, not whether the PANEL was stacked or Coalition-friendly viewpoints were or were not given fair hearing). In Abetz’s deluded view the audience composition comprises the litmus test of bias because:

Senator ABETZ—The test surely is that the ABC provide a balanced audience because the chairing, the support, the commentary out of the audience can potentially be off-putting for some people that are part of the panel or, indeed, give those listening at home the impression that this balanced audience is somehow against a particular participant.

Abetz is deluded. A biased audience is as easy to spot as a biased commentator, in fact easier. And the ABC viewing/listening public is likely to be more analytical in these areas than in the audience for commercial television. An ABC viewing public will not be swayed because the audience is rent-a-crowd.

Scott continuously emphasised the PANEL and time given for their VIEWS in all this wacky questioning of Abetz because, sanely, he realises that’s where the litmus test for bias really lies. Abetz can’t find any bias in the Panel, Chair or balance of views expressed so, in order to justify this particular adventure in his pananoid vendetta against the ABC, he rakes over the audience composition. When presented with statistical evidence of an audience comprising a reasonable plurality of views over one year, he ignores it to concentrate on an anomolously low turn-out of his cheer squad in one particular episode.

In fact, Abetz knows that the ABC does not want the Coalition to be under-represented.

Senator ABETZ—Q&A supervising executive producer Peter McEvoy allegedly told The Weekend Australian:
… anyone could register on the program’s website to be chosen to join the audience.
“We want more Liberal supporters and National supporters and Labor supporters—the more
registrants we have the more representative Q&A will be,” McEvoy said.

(May 2008, p. 68)

The ABC Needs To Fix My Problem

I suspect this whole line of inquiry by Abetz is an act, a posture. He’s just shaking around a few shibboleths to keep his constituency outraged and provide the impression he’s doing something useful rather than just quaffing tax-payer funded Port or overindulging in free PacMan in the Shadow Cabinet Lounge.

More curious though is why Abetz thinks its the ABC’s responsibility to go out and motivate Liberals to sign up for the audience. If Abetz wants the cheer squad to turn out, shouldn’t HE be out there telling them there’s a game on ?

Senator ABETZ—Do you agree that there is an over-representation in all or most of your audience from—let’s call it the centre—the Centre Left of Australian politics?

Mr Scott—I have given you the voting intention. I have given you the breakdown.

Senator ABETZ—Does that tell you something about the balance or imbalance?

Mr Scott—No, we are working assiduously to try to ensure that there is a full range of
viewpoints that are evidenced in our audience. This is the first time this has been tried on
Australian television.

Senator ABETZ—Yes, and I am asking you how you are trying to make it better [UTMW - by drumming up more Liberals to sit in the audience].

(Oct. p.156)

What the ABC did was go and ask Liberal MPs for ideas where they should recruit studio members from and were given various suggestions, then in addition to that they wrote to a whole bunch of organisations. Abetz asked for the list and after receiving it began an even more intensively tendentious line of attack – that some of the organisations were not guaranteed to be hotbeds of Coalition support and that when the organisations were contacted by the ABC they were not explicitly told that the ABC was seeking Coalition supporters for the audience. (Feb. 2009, pp. 55-57).

Scott informed Abetz that the breakdown for the first episode of 2009 was ALP 29%, Coalition 36%, Greens 10%. Abetz purred his delight ‘It just goes to show that these questions at estimates do bear results’.

In the May 2009 Senate Commitee, much the same ground was gone over. With Abetz making a meal of the point that in a written answer to Abetz, Scott had said ‘the following organisations were written to to recruit more Coalition supporters for the Q&A audience’ but that the actual emails to those organisations had not explicitly stated that their purpose was to attract more Coalition supporters to the audience of Q&A. (May 2009 pp. 50-52)

Of course, Abetz himself knows that the groups that the ABC wrote to were perfectly sensible choices as Coalition-friendly groups, though the ABC did not confine itself totally to Coalition majority organisations.

Senator Abetz – Suffice it to say, whatever you have done seems to have worked, given the latest figures, and I am pleased about that. Allow me to finish that bracket of questions with a tick.

(Feb. p. 57)

So is tax-payers money spent.

By the way, the groups that Abetz felt may not be sufficiently Coalition-friendly enough were Sydney University Politics Society, the Australasian Union of Jewish Students, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Ernst & Young, Mallesons Stephen Jaques, Brown Wright Stein, business groups including the Sydney Chamber of Commerce. He was only completely happy with the University Of New South Wales Liberal Club, and as Mark Scott mischevously pointed out, the Facebook Group ‘Don’t Blame Me, I Voted Liberal…‘

All In Favour Of Mindless Screaming Say AARRGHH.

Unfortunately for we tax-payers, who are footing the bill for Abetz’s mission to ensure that the composition of the Q&A audience reflects as near as possible the results of the last Federal election, Eric is wasting our money. The fruits of Abetz’s labour will be a degredation in the quality of Q&A.

Access to the Q&A audience is open to any interested party. Those who attended of their own spontaneous volition were obviously attuned with the vision of Q&A to provide stimulating discussion over a range of issues with questions drawn from interested members of the public in attendance. The audience would self-evidently be politically and socially motivated persons interested in putting, hearing and debating alternative points of view.

Abetz, on the other hand, sees Q&A as a microcosm of parliamentary Question Time an exercise in political point-scoring, Dorothy Dixers, spin, evasion, macho chest-beating, insults, immature screaming and finger-pointing. Recall Abetz’s rationale for insisting that ‘audience balance’ was the key to successful debate:

The test surely is that the ABC provide a balanced audience because the chairing, the support, the commentary out of the audience can potentially be off-putting for some people that are part of the panel or, indeed, give those listening at home the impression that this balanced audience is somehow against a particular participant

For Abetz, the winner of the debate is determined by which cheer-squad makes the most noise, not which point of view was best argued.

Abetz obviously wants and expects his cheer squad to provide mindless noise because the viewing audience, in his opinion, will be persuaded that the noisy team is the best team. Eric, that’s Question Time, not Q&A. You have been so long in Parliament you have forgotten what a real debate actually is.

I have noticed that the latter 2008 and 2009 audiences have gone in a lot more for cheering and ’spontaneous’ acts of applause. I would guess this is a result, on the Coalition side of being under instructions from Eric.

Colonizing Neptune

Why does the Coalition hate, fear and despise the ABC so much? Noam Chomsky said:
Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like it’s from Neptune

The Coalition unashamedly represents business-corporate-commercial interests. Commercial interests dominates the media ownership. Hence, in general, commercial media editorialises for the same constituency as the Coalition. This leaves the ABC as the only source of critique of the business-corporate tsunami. Because it is the only real voice of critique it sounds like it is being broadcast from Neptune. So weird, so different, so crazy, so hostile! It’s against us (or sounds like it might be). It needs to be silenced or become normal like Channel 7,9 and 10, which is to say yet another mouthpiece for big money and the powerful, like all the rest.

Abetz is trying to colonize Neptune. To turn it into Planet ASX200. Just like home.

The Other Kind Of Balance

The ‘balance’ that Abetz is trying to achieve on the ABC is reminiscent of the ‘balance’ that Town Councils of the American Deep South sought to achieve when critique of their racist town laws was bought to their meetings. They hired their own rent-a-crowd, the Ku Klux Klan to provide balanced commentary and even out the numbers. As former Ku Klux Klan member CP Ellis relates:

We began to make some inroads with the city councilmen and county commissioners. They began to call us friend. Call us at night on the telephone: “C. P., glad you came to that meeting last night.” They didn’t want integration either, but they did it secretively, in order to get elected. They couldn’t stand up openly and say it, but they were glad somebody was sayin it. We visited some of the city leaders in their homes and talked to em privately. It wasn’t long before councilmen would call me up: “The Blacks are comin up tonight and makin outrageous demands. How about some of you people showin up and have a little balance?

We’d load up our cars and we’d fill up half the council chambers, and the Blacks the other half.

I do not suggest that Abetz supports the aims, views or practices of the KKK, but I do suggest that Abetz is not so much interested in ‘balance’ but in maintaing business-corporate dominance of the Australian polity. The ABC represents the ‘Blacks making outrageous demands’ here merely critiquing the pradigms and assumption of the Coalition political agenda. Abetz wants that critique stilled, or at least minimized.

Hence Abetz forces the ABC, under the noble-sounding banner of ‘balance’, to recruit, on his behalf a Coalition rent-a-crowd who have previously shown no interest in the free debate of Q&A. Their role is to make more noise than the opposition. CP Ellis’s councilmen would approve of that.

Abetz Abandons The Free Market

It is of some amusement that Abetz implicitly abandons ‘free-market’ principles when it suits his purposes and here, in the matter of Q&A audience composition insists on quotas to deliver equity. Though it is not in fact clear the market really failed as the 2008 figures as 32% ALP, 24% Coalition with a large proportion undeclared may be within the margin of error for the 2007 election result.

Where Thought-Control Dictatorships Have Got It Right

Abetz is not, in fact, interested in a balanced spectrum of ideas being presented to the public. He only pretends to be. This is easily determined by the fact that Abetz never questions the content or coverage of bulletins emenating from commercial media as being biased. He never would. In the main they are unchallenging to the Coalition’s agenda. Abetz is ONLY concerned about what the ABC does, justifying this by the noting that only the ABC is publicly-funded and has a special obligation to impartiality. By this paper-thin device Abetz can ignore any and all bias except that he would like to believe is sourced from the ABC.

As Abetz further knows, the concept of impartiality can be abused to provide a cloak for propaganda. It is in this very way that the Coalition attacked the ABC mercilessly over the Iraq War, insisting that any time the ABC questioned the US-approved terms to describe the war, intelligence justifications for the war or desciptions of Saddam’s regime, then this constituted bias on the part of the ABC. The assumption is, of course, that the US Government and Military themselves used impartial and unbiased terms to describe their activities and those of Iraq, an assumption so naive it could not possibly be believed by any mature analyst.

This nauseating misuse of the concept of impartiality is rigorously defended by Abetz, who insists that the ABC always use the term ‘war on terror’ with a straight face to denote the true objective of the US War In Iraq and must never use the term ’so-called war on terror’

From the October 2008 Senate Estimate Committee Hansard, p. 154:

Senator ABETZ—[...] To start off with, did the ABC have a view about using the phrase ‘so-called war on terror’?
Mr Scott—Let me check that.
Senator ABETZ—Because I thought it had been agreed that that term, prefaced with ‘socalled’,
would not be used.
Mr Scott—Do you have an example that has come to your attention?
Senator ABETZ—Yes, I do—the 8 am news on Radio National this morning.

So it would seem that Abetz holds a debased view of impartiality, holding it to mean ‘uncritical regurgitation of Government/Military sourced information’. The editors of Pravda would have no trouble concurring, no matter any thought-control dictatorship you would care to name.

To Sum Up

Abetz harassment of the ABC over the Q&A audience is the continuation of the Coalition vendetta against the ABC. This particular arm of it will result in the degeneration of the quality of political debate on Q&A as it becomes a microcosm of Parliamentary Question Time as a result of the debased notions of ‘debate’ and ‘balance’ held by Senator Abetz.

Abetz’s harassment of the ABC is also hypocritical as he does not require exacting balance of any other broadcaster except the ABC, and his capaign against Q&A represents an opportunistic departure from Coalition market-based philosophy predicated solely on the perception that the Coalition is losing something by being underrepresented in the Q&A audience.

Indeed it is not even clear that the Colition was truly underrepresented based on figures presented by Mark Scott, and even so, the objectives of Q&A being free, fair debate do not require a political microcosm of the Australian electorate to be present.

Amusingly, some of Senator Abetz’s conceptions in regard to impartiality are features of thought-control dictatorships.

Part of Senator Abetz’s strategy of dealing with the ABC is to waste its time and money in order to intimidate it into minimizing or silencing its critique of Coalition policies. He does this, ironically, using tax-payer money which therefore constitutes a double waste.

Senator Abetz’s interactions with the ABC are partisan, self-interested and pathetic. His attitude toward the ABC are precisely those he ascribed to Senator Conroy of the ALP below, (with appropriate reversals of Liberal Party for ALP)

Senator ABETZ—It shows an immature attitude to the public broadcaster, Minister, and, if that is the sort of attitude that you will be showing in your involvement with the ABC, it confirms our worst fears as to how the ALP treats the ABC—as its own plaything.

(Oct., p.155)

The Final Irony

The final irony of all this is that the ABC is far and away the best quality media outlet in Australia. It is the broadcaster of choice for any Australian truly interested in quality current affairs and political analysis. Why Abetz should be attacking the ABC instead of supporting it, only his perverse partisan instincts can justify.

Even the king of all ABC haters, John Howard himself, agrees that the ABC is ’serious’ i.e. quality media. He directly said so to Kerry O’Brien in his final 7:30 Report interview before the 2007 Federal Election.

KERRY O’BRIEN: I must have interviewed you about 70 or 80 times as Prime Minister. It’s an odd feeling, I must say, to contemplate the possibility that this could be our last, but if this turns out to be the case, thank you sincerely for making yourself available as often as you have even in some of the tougher moments.

JOHN HOWARD: Well I believe in the accountability of public figures in the serious media and even though…

Abetz and the Coalition would be happier if the ABC transformed itself into Channel 10 and reserved its news bulletin for updates on Hollywood gossip. Its objective is the same as that Howard insisted upon as a precondition for his participation in the ABC’s documentary The Howard Years: “No analysis, no commentary”.

While Abetz and the Coalition continue their harassment of the ABC they prove themselves unworthy of forming government in a democracy.

Dog Whistle Of The Century

Dog Whistle Of The Century

The Daily Telegraph has brilliantly employed juxaposition of text and image on its front cover 29-May-2009 to Dog Whistle to the fear and paranoia of Muslims and Islam felt by many of the ‘Howard Battlers’ or ‘working families’ of Sydney.

The cover is completely filled with a picture of one of Skaf brothers (notorious young Lebanese Muslim rapists) being visited by his parents in jail. Skaf and his mother occupy most of the shot. Skaf has his arm and hand extended towards his mother palm-up and is holding something indistinguishable. The text reads (to paraphrase) ‘How did the evil Skaf brothers get a mobile phone in jail ?’

The answer, supplied by the highly suggestive picture is that his mother smuggled it in under her Islamic garb in which she is dressed. Here’s the story from the on-line edition.

Islamophobic fear, for which female Islamic attire is a lightning rod, is thus aroused by the implication that a MUSLIM RAPIST has received COVERT SUPPORT from an ISLAMIC woman DECEITFULLY using HIJAB to CONCEAL CONTRABAND.

The sub-texts:
- They can’t be trusted.
- They are not repentant.
- SHE COULD HAVE A BOMB just as easily as a phone.

The sales strategy of the Daily Telegraph is to reflect, reinforce and justify prejudice (and supply the racing form guide). The May 29 issue is a surpassing example.

Whatever Skaf’s crimes I find it entirely understandable that his mother should wish to be able to speak to him and, notwithstanding the repulsive nature of Skaf’s crimes, it is understandable he wishes to speak with her. But its jail. He can’t have a mobile phone.

The Daily Telegraph does not explore this human angle on the story, but instead bashes on relentlessly in its supporting article about Law And Order issues, content to let its cover Dog Whistle the rest.

Which it does brilliantly for the coffers of the Telegraph, for the xenophobia of its readership and to the general poisoning of the mass culture.

Poll: What’s Your Favourite Guid ?

Since I am too much of a scab to pay WordPress for the use of their blogging site, I am restricted to the functionality of their free version, which does not include polls.

So I’m implementing this as a Thread instead.

Poll: What’s Your Favourite Guid ?

A. 8d3de6d8-df22-4e10-8a19-b30aa044265f
B. 22845c1f-0fe0-46dd-a71d-4f47da37bade
C. 1a1ccc5d-50af-4c80-9d9b-e5b89b620264
D. Other (please specify)

Instructions

Leave a comment with a vote for your favourite Guid. Please also leave a short note explaining why you like that Guid so much.

More Guid Fun

Check out this page! I’m still quivering!

Feminist Androgynists Are Everywhere

Reds Under The Bed, Femmos Under The Fridge

Miranda Devine makes a puzzling – borderline crazy – analysis of the recent Matthew Johns/Cronulla Sharks scandal in her article “Natural Men Scolded Into Timidity” which appeared in WA Today, 21-May-2009.

Johns was alleged to be the ringleader (Johns denies being the ringleader but admits being involved) in a gross humiliation perpetrated by him and his football club colleagues on a New Zealand woman in 2002.

Devine ascribes the outrage which followed revelation of this horrific event and the calls for retribution against Johns and his team-mates as being the product of Feminism and the Feminist movement.

She says:

The initial criticism of Johns was warranted [...] But since then, Johns has been crucified, with demands he name his teammates, sponsors threatening to pull out of rugby league, a school principal banning NRL players from visiting classes and mothers stopping their sons playing the game.

You always know when zealotry creeps into a story there is another agenda at work – and that is that the Johns case is a beachhead in the war against masculinity, waged by [...]the women’s studies movement.

Feminists v. NRL

In Devine’s conception, the women’s movement is responsible for the outrage directed against Johns et. al. and has an agenda to destroy Rubgy League since League is a place where men and boys can behave in unambiguously masculine fashion, this being anathema to Feminists who wish to

produce an androgynous utopia.

in which authentic masculinity and feminity are to be suppressed and replaced by non-gender identities and hence Feminists have the objective of

Killing off rugby league

The Awesome Power Of Feminist Androgynists

Devine’s attribution of such agenda-setting power to the minority viewpoint of Feminists seeking androgynous utopia (surely even a fringe within Feminism) is Howardesque in its gigantic view of the political power of selected elite minorities.

Howard famously identified Aboriginals, Feminists and Left-Wing Intellectuals as representing an near-irresistible tide of political power which had captured Australian society and thinking in order to promote their selfish, sectional interests against the ‘mainstream’.

In Devine’s view then, corporate sponsors, school principals and mothers are the foot soldiers of the Feminist Androgyny Movement, screaming the slogans of their ideological masters who remote-control their brains from command centres in Darlinghurst and Ultimo.

It’s plain weird.

Return To Sanity

In my view the general repulsion of a broad spectrum of society including the corporate sector, middle-class mums, male commercial media identities and famous famous Rugby League persons themselves reflects a sane rejection of vicious and sick behaviours exhibted by the Cronulla Sharks in 2002, Canterbury Bulldogs in 2004 and what Roy Masters (see comments by Bob Ellis here) admits has been common-place in League for years or decades.

Those vicious and sick behaviours include intimidating younger women into ‘consent’ when outnumbering them by twelve to one, self-abusing en masse while watching team mates perform such ‘consensual’ acts, rubbing themselves (more than one player simultaneously) over the face of the woman while other acts are in progress and queueing-up to join in and sneaking into the room to do so without the knowledge of the woman.

The Zealot’s Own Zealotry

It seems to me that Devine is missing the point in an almost unbelievable manner on this topic. In fact, it seems to me that Devine is a victim of the syndrome that she herself identifies:

You always know when zealotry creeps into a story there is another agenda at work

Devine’s agenda is the evil of Feminism possibly in conjunction with the moral laxity of certain young ladies which are topics to which Devine continually returns. Her zealotry has caused her to rather crazily ascribe outrage over this issue to the agency of the Feminist Movement and miss the central and obvious reason for the public outcry, which is consent and violence toward women.

Don’t Waste A Good Crisis

In my view, media commentators such as Miranda Devine and Steve Price of 2UE, who are fans of Rugby League, are missing a golden opportunity to save the game they love. League now has the opportunity to eradicate the culture of disrespect toward women which is producing the sick behaviours causing public disgust.

By confronting the problem squarely, by admitting responsibility and complicity, the clubs, players and NRL can establish a complete no-tolerance policy toward (group) intimidation of women into ‘consent’. They can clean themselves up, then get on with playing the game they love.

Hiding the problem and blaming Feminist Androgynists, the women involved or any other agency will only allow this game-threatening behaviour to linger and fester. Devine and Price should get smart and admit the problem.

Otherwise, left to its sick culture, NRL can expect to be held in contempt forever.

Its their choice.

Other Blogs

The Michael Duffy Files deconstructs Devine’s article into an entertaining series of self-contradictions.

Errr.. that’s about it.