Federal Labor MP Michael Danby is clearly a very busy man. If he's not defending the Zionist cause, slamming opponents or forgetting that he's actually an Australian politician, he's working feverishly on goodies for his lucky electorate. It seems, however, that attention to detail isn't his strength. Today's Australian reports (no link available):
"Michael Danby, federal member for Melbourne Ports, had a brainwave of sorts three years ago; he sent his constituents fridge-magnet calendars, highlighting public and religious holidays as well as school terms. Trouble was, he listed April 24 as Anzac Day. This year he got Anzac Day correct, but the good news ends there. He apparently still doesn't know what day of the week it is. Danby shaded in the NSW school holidays - of little use to local Victorians who include Simon Crean and Greg Combet. Labour Day is shaded in as being on March 20 - it's the 13th. He has listed most of the Christian and Jewish holidays, but only one Greek, and not a mention of any Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim significant dates. Oh yes, and there were a couple of misplaced suburbs in the map of the electorate. But the sin to end all sins was Danby's omission to register the biggest religious/public holiday of all - the Melbourne Cup on November 7."
Memo to Danby: spend less time on fighting the Zionist cause and more energy on actually providing useful information for your electorate.
"Michael Danby, federal member for Melbourne Ports, had a brainwave of sorts three years ago; he sent his constituents fridge-magnet calendars, highlighting public and religious holidays as well as school terms. Trouble was, he listed April 24 as Anzac Day. This year he got Anzac Day correct, but the good news ends there. He apparently still doesn't know what day of the week it is. Danby shaded in the NSW school holidays - of little use to local Victorians who include Simon Crean and Greg Combet. Labour Day is shaded in as being on March 20 - it's the 13th. He has listed most of the Christian and Jewish holidays, but only one Greek, and not a mention of any Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim significant dates. Oh yes, and there were a couple of misplaced suburbs in the map of the electorate. But the sin to end all sins was Danby's omission to register the biggest religious/public holiday of all - the Melbourne Cup on November 7."
Memo to Danby: spend less time on fighting the Zionist cause and more energy on actually providing useful information for your electorate.
5 Comments:
"slamming opponents". Much better.
Even if it did, Edward, what's your point?
No - not if the person has no power to enforce his opinion. You could argue that Danby does - however if he did exercise the power of his office in such a way, it would constitute an abuse of that power vested in him by his electorate. And of course there is no evidence that this is what he did. He publicly called for MUP not to publish the book (as is his right) and MUP ignored him (as is their right). So what's your problem?
My point right from the start is that Danby didn't censor Loewenstein. Nor was he quashing dissent. He was exercising his right to voice his opinion. Calling it anything other than that is resorting to hysterics.
It's not an attempt to limit free speech whoever makes such a call. Requesting a publisher not publish a book is exercising one's freedom of speech, and it's not removing those of another. If Danby made a case to MUP regarding why they shouldn't publish, and MUP reviews their decision based on the merits of the case and decides not to publish, then that isn't censorship - that's a standard commercial decision. Antony has a number of options available to him to get his views heard. He doesn't have a right to be published. Just because one does not get a book published does not mean their freedom of speech is curtailed.
Look, I'm absolutely certain that Danby realised MUP would ignore his demands. I imagine that Danby went public with his demand because he was
a) responding to his constituents
b) playing up to his constituents
c) acting on his own personal beliefs
Anyway, this is a tedious, tangential path you've dragged us down. The seminal point I was making was that Danby did not attempt to censor, nor did he quash dissent etc. However, Antony has claimed that he's done both. I merely commented that "slamming opponents" was a more accurate description.
Even if the publisher listened to Danby (or anyone else who made such a demand) and decided not to publish the book, that STILL does not constitute an extinguishment of free speech! Neither Antony nor anyone else has an inalienable right to have a book published by a third party! And there is no reason why a company cannot go back on its initial decision to support an author - there may be consequences due to contractual arrangements, granted - but a publisher is under no obligation to publish a book. This is so incredibly obvious it's scary.
"That's what politicans normally do when addressing a specific target constituency."
One size does not fit all. You have absolutely no basis to make such a claim. If anything, constituents like their representatives to be proactive. Especially over an issue like this.
Post a Comment
<< Home