Saturday, June 22, 2019

Why Aren't Australian Journalists Backing Julian Assange? 6

LH has finally tracked down a Late Night Live broadcast, not found in LNL's archives, which corroborates his contention that Phillip Adams "scooped up" Carr, Greer and the Brisbane Writers Festival audience, no less, on September 7, 2018, and took them all to a Brisbane venue known as The New Farm Cinemas to discuss Carr and Greer's books and broadcast it all on LNL. Called Greer and Carr - uncensored, the LNL broadcast is dated 11/9/18.

Phillip Adams began the session by declaring that:

"I can't begin to fathom why the Brisbane Writers Festival has ejected these two and so what we decided to do was have a salon de refuse and that's why we're here tonight."

Greer was first cab off the rank, discussing her book On Rape. Then Adams broached the subject of Julian Assange with her:

"I want to ask you a personal question. I was involved with WikiLeaks and Assange before both became famous brands, and after the trouble in Sweden I've tended to take the John Pilger/Geoffrey Robertson position because I fear for what will happen to Assange if he is sent to the US, but you in fact made me rethink my position. Your view on the Assange case?"

This 'rethinking' amazed me. Had Adams read Greer's book, or was he just reacting to what she had said on the night?

Without giving Greer's full response to Adams' question, I note her following points on Assange on the night:

"He had sex without consulting them"; "this is rape"; "he took a liberty with these women"; "he did [non-consensual sex] 3 times"; "he's still stuck in the embassy where they desperately want to get rid of him. They do say he has personal hygiene problems, which may be a lie"; "I don't like him or the way he's conducted himself, but he has been unfairly dealt with - but not necessarily by his enemies. He's suffered more at the hands of his friends [such as Robertson]." (Note no applause from audience.)

Adams then moved on to ask Carr:

"You describe yourself strongly in the Zionist camp, and as an unabashed supporter of the Jewish state. What changed your mind was pressure applied to you by the lobby when you presented a peace prize to Palestinian leader and frequent LNL guest Hanan Ashrawi. Talk to that."

Here's Carr's full response on the night:

"It was 2003. I was premier of NSW. A peace institute at Sydney University asked me if I'd present an award to Hanan Ashrawi, a brave Palestinian woman. My response was... to encourage a Palestinian woman like this would be good for Israel. In that spirit, and as a long-term president of Labor Friends of Israel, I accepted. There was a hurricane of activity from leaders of the Israel lobby condemning me for agreeing to present the award and I thought for me to accept the invitation and then pull out would be a message for every Australian of Arab background that they really don't count when the Israel lobby gets moving, and I wasn't bloody well going to do it. And with every day I make it clear that to pull out under this sort of pressure would be disgraceful. That taught me a lot about the bullying which is part of the approach of the Israel lobby in Australia, in the US, and elsewhere, and it's fundamentally wrong when they want to blind us to the fact that they're spreading settlements on the West Bank at a pace and a design that will stop a Palestinian state ever being created.. And if they can't see that's not in Israel's interests, then I can't help it, but I'm darn well going to present the case for an end to settlements, for a humane treatment of the occupied Palestinians, and for recognition of Palestine... And I'm proud of being able to shift the attitude of Labor conferences... and get other state Labor conferences to do the same, with a view to having the next national conference of the Labor Party, say in December, in view of all this... recognising Palestine." (Note loud applause from audience.)

So there you have it. But what I find most intriguing in all of this is that nowhere in the msm media did this quite extraordinary holding of a parallel event elicit a mention (at least as far as I am aware), not even from the participants themselves. And also why the broadcast didn't immediately find its way into the LNL archives. I must say too that for me Phillip Adams here remains just as problematic on the subject of Palestine/Israel as ever.

3 comments:

Grappler said...

On the so-called "rape charges", Craig Murray has a good article.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/06/a-swedish-court-injects-some-sense/

"Julian Assange has never tried to avoid the investigation in Sweden. His concern was always that the whole thing was cooked up as a ruse to get him into custody for extradition to the USA. Events have proved this to be true."

And another by Jonathan Cook on the role of the media in Assange's case:

https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2019-05-29/fooled-media-assange/


"... the ruling in 2016 of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, some of the world’s foremost legal experts who found that the UK and Sweden were violating international law ..."

As charges, they never existed. The requested extradition was for questioning regarding "minor rape" (a Swedish legal term as discussed in your previous article, MERC) allegations, that might (or might not) have eventually become charges, but were not charges at the time the extradition was requested and have never become so - the case is now dropped by Sweden. Greer seems to be making things up. Her sloppy use of language and willingness to publicly judge without hearing the evidence does not impress.

Anonymous said...

Surprising? Back in 2010 there was Australian media support for Wikileaks. They made a statement to then PM Gillard. saying:
"To aggressively attempt to shut WikiLeaks down, to threaten to prosecute those who publish official leaks, and to pressure companies to cease doing commercial business with WikiLeaks, is a serious threat to democracy, which relies on a free and fearless press."
Those signing:
"the Walkley Foundation .... the ten members of the Walkley Advisory Board, as well as editors of major Australian newspapers and news websites and the news directors of the country’s three commercial TV networks and two public broadcasters"
https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/australian-media-figures-defend-wikileaks

But perhaps it's not so surprising given the context. At the time, some of those signers were collaborating with Wikileaks and the rest were reporting on them- the Embassy Cables. Also, as they point out in the statement, the New York Times was also facing heat from their collaboration with Wikileaks. So, some feelings of self-preservation were probably a factor.
One of the keys to gradually removing media support has been the characterisation of Assange as a hacker or thief (We Steal Secrets) or some other, but most definitely NOT a journalist. Interesting that due to recent developments journalists appear less secure and have tentatively started to push back...LH

Anonymous said...

Ha! Ha! Assange had a beard! So Funny! What a tramp!

Revealing article regarding the corporate media* on Assange by Media Lens.
http://medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2019/908-the-shaving-kit-manufacturing-the-julian-assange-witch-hunt.html

* Media Lens prefer the term 'corporate media' over 'mainstream media' as being a more accurate description.
LH