Tag Archives: Pauline Hanson

Jason Morrison on freedom of religion

Posted on by
Reply

Jason Morrison is a presenter for Sydney radio station 2GB, and he has a regular slot on the Sunrise program with Neil Mitchell. On Wednesday morning, he expressed his view on Pauline Hanson’s intention to not sell her house to a Muslim buyer. Note that this transcript was taken from a dodgy online clip, so may not be completely verbatim:

JASON MORRISON: I do care about who moves in, I care like anyone in a neighbourhood who ends up in the place that I’m at. And look I imagine if we substitute the word that she’s chosen there – “Muslim” for “developer”, people would say “oh, good for her, she’s stopping”…

Look she can make her own judgements – I don’t necessarily agree with that, but hey uh, this woman has principles.

NEIL MITCHELL: [starts interjecting]

JASON MORRISON: They might be obnoxious principles, they might be things that Neil you find despicable or whatever else, but at least she’s putting her- not just her heart where it is but she’s actually saying here, look “money where the mouth is” – she’s actually saying I wouldn’t sell. If the offer is there, I wouldn’t sell. I mean I think its silly, but that’s- she’s got the money and everything to do it.

NEIL MITCHELL: But if you’re refusing to sell to a developer, it’s because of what they’re going to do on that block – to build something. How can you disqualify someone on the basis of their religion? It’s immoral. You can’t do it – its just wrong.

JASON MORRISON: But, but, see- Neil, you miss it. It’s her house. I- I find what she is suggesting to be wrong – I wouldn’t have that kind of level of principle, but it’s her house. She can make that choice. I mean-

NEIL MITCHELL: It will be interesting to see whether she can. Theoretically, you might be right, but is she in fact liable for some sort of action under anti-discrimination legislation – I don’t know if anybody would want her house, but-

JASON MORRISON: She could reject the offer.

What a load of uninformed flim-flam dressed up as reasoned argument.

For the record, Mitchell’s rejoinder towards the end appears on the money. Acting Queensland Anti-Discrimination Commissioner Neroli Holmes has confirmed her view that any discrimination against buyers on religious grounds would put Hanson at risk of breaching the state’s anti-discrimination legislation.

In other words, it is highly likely that Morrison’s purported position, as expressed above, is not only discriminatory, but at odds with Queensland law.

So does Jason Morrison believe in freedom of religion, or not?

Messages from Queensland

Posted on by
Reply

In the past few weeks I have not touched at all on the Queensland state election, deferring instead in authority (and proximity!) to folks like Mark Bahnisch and Possum over at Crikey. Since the election result, however, I have found myself wondering a little bit about what it all might mean. On the one hand, at least from where I am sitting well south of the border (with NSW let alone Queensland), Lawrence Springborg seemed a more credible Opposition Leader than Ted Bailileu and certainly a candidate more likely to lead his party to victory than Peter Debnam, the last failed Opposition Leader in New South Wales. Anna Bligh’s government did seem a little vulnerable, and Bligh did not at all times seem comfortable and in control as Premier since Peter Beattie’s resignation.

In any case, here I think are the key outcomes worth pondering:

  • Anna Bligh’s victory represents a victory also for Peter Beattie and the matter in which he handled his transition out of state politics. In transitioning to Bligh, I do believe that Beattie has proven himself to have done a better job at managing the transition than Bob Carr in New South Wales. Personally, I thought Beattie still had some juice in the tank when he resigned. One wonders whether he will now turn his eye to federal politics now that his exit from Queensland politics has been vindicated by the voters?
  • Phillip Coorey suggests a bit cheekily for SMH that even Nathan Rees should hold out some hope for victory in 2011 after Anna Bligh’s result. Unfortunately it’s only a throwaway line. Queensland and New South Wales are not necessarily on the similar trajectories they might seem to be after the departures of Messrs Beattie and Carr. Rees is currently not commanding the authority he needs to as leader in order to be a real chance at the next poll.
  • Was there a “Rudd effect” at play? How many votes is Kevin09 worth at a state level?
  • Is the shambling hybrid Liberal National Party, having lost a supposedly unlosable election, ready to fall back apart into its rotting constituent pieces once again?
  • Pauline Hanson’s defeat yet again – this time in the seat of Beaudesert – will hopefully signal the end of her political career. In a democratic sense I do think that there might be a need out there for someone with an approximation of her views to be represented, but I don’t think she is the right person, in more ways than one. Her treatment at the hands of the media over the past few weeks should nevertheless serve to further galvanise support for people with anti-elitist, anti-city political views.
  • Ronan Lee’s defeat in the seat of Indooroopilly calls into question the value of his defection to the Greens and whether this was tactically the right thing to do for him, based upon his views. Could he have done more for his supporters as a member of the Queensland Labor party room lead by a Premier with a fresh mandate?
  • Now that Anna Bligh has stepped out from under Peter Beattie’s shadow, what kind of leader will she be? Will she do better than Morris Iemma did after his post-handover election victory?

Your thoughts?

Pictures, Pauline Hanson and the media

Posted on by
3

Books have already been written about the curious relationship that Pauline Hanson enjoys with the media, but her latest foray into politics, a tilt at the Queensland seat of Beaudesert, looks set to provide ample fodder for future updated editions. The latest furore her candidacy has brought into the limelight concerns someone named John Johnson, some twenty year-old photos, and what seems to be a rather gung-ho approach to the business of newspaper editorial at the Sunday Telegraph. Unless you are blind, deaf and dumb or overseas you have probably heard about the story thirty-two and a half times already, but for mine the key contribution to the debate is this:

Sunday Telegraph editor Neil Breen said the newspaper was standing by the story and the pictures. The newspaper’s photograph experts had checked the images using computer software before they were published.

“You can see changes in the pixels … if they’ve been doctored, and they weren’t doctored,” he said.

He said the paper had given Hanson every opportunity to comment on the pictures before they were published, but she did not do so.

“It’s now a battle of he-said she-said,” Mr Breen said.

Well if the photos have been put through “something called Photoshop”, as Breen has painfully asserted, then that’s all right then, eh? Whether the photos are indeed shots of Hanson or not is one question. The fact that a stinking morass of doubt exists about their authenticity, however, raises some serious concerns about how this has unfolded. Hanson denies that the woman in Johnson’s photos is her, and has made a few decent points in the public domain supporting her case. Unless the Tele has some further information that not been aired yet in the public domain, it has published these photos on the word of just one man, and stunningly circumstantial evidence. The woman looks like she could be Hanson, and Johnson recalls the woman’s name to be “Pauline”. Is that really all they are going on? A name and a likeness? Could it in anyway be fair or just for a newspaper to publish photos of someone in a state of undress without proving beyond reasonable doubt that the photos feature who they think they do?

It is currently unclear whether Neil Breen and the Tele have been played like fiddles, John Johnson is just plain mistaken, or, in fact, the photos do feature Hanson and the controversial belle from Ipswich has purposefully or absent-mindedly put the whole episode behind her. What is clear is that regardless of her political views, Pauline Hanson has been needlessly burnt at the stake in the media once again, and it is looking likely that she will collect a swag of votes from a sympathetic electorate when this episode is finally done and dusted.

For once I am with Tim Blair and Andrew Bolt – whether they feature Hanson or not (and there is a decent chance they do not) publishing these photos was a mistake of diabolical proportions. The pursuit of a lurid exclusive has landed the Tele knee deep in excrement.