An open letter to Peter Dutton

Peter Dutton said yesterday that “People who are criticising the government criticism are undermining the ABC’s apology” for having Zaky Mallah on Q&A.

And so this prompted me to write a letter to Peter Dutton.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Dear Mr Dutton,

Yesterday you said as was reported in mutual outlets but I am quoting from The Age that that “People who are criticising the government criticism are undermining the ABC’s apology”

It is indeed a terrible thing that Zaky Mallah was allowed to appear on “our” national broadcaster and worse allowing him to have an opinion. Which he then projected FROM HIS FACE! Like some kind of bullet or other dangerous object.

Although it should be pointed out for the record that what he said was that MP Steve Cioboon’s actions and rhetoric might make some people want to join ISIL he was not inciting people to actually do so.

Your stance on this matter seems emblematic of your grasp of logic. Whereby somehow my (or others) opinion on something can affect an outcome that has already happened. Sadly this is not the case because when I look at the recording of MP Steve Cioboon Q&A I don’t see him burst into flames at the suggestion that someone who went through due process in our court system should still be evicted from the country. Or that “Leaks” from the government were part of good government whereby we need someone moral enough to leak information they disagree with but not moral enough to consider leaking a bad thing. I guess my mind powers are weak.

But here we are. It seems that you are advocating the stance that If you’re not for this government, their ideology and what they deem to be Newspeak then you are against them. You recognise that ideas are dangerous and so you must have ideas that are in line with yours.

No Mr Dutton my disagreement with the government does not undermine the ABC’s apology because despite paying for the ABC I don’t speak for it. Oh that I did! There would have been no apology I can promise you that.

In the same way that I disagreed with the Chaser when they apologised for their “Make a realistic wish” sketch. Or Andrew Bolt when he apologised for….oh no wait for some reason he’s never been made to apologise for anything he says despite being as inflammatory and insulting as anyone I can think of……hurm…that seems strange and unfair? He was taken to Court but then the Prime Minister himself called him to say how unfair he thought that was. Since I have nothing to do with those people my opinion on their apology cannot change in value no matter what I do.

Of course our beloved leader had to weigh in. “Our supposed national broadcaster is giving a platform to someone who hates us, hates our way of life, supports the terrorists who would do us harm,” he told the Nine Network’s Today program.

“The issue for the ABC, our national broadcaster is whose side are you on? Because all too often the ABC seems to be on everyone’s side but Australia’s.”

Hurm….I wasn’t aware that journalism was about “sides” but then having been a journalist for many years Tony would know that better than me wouldn’t he?

Indeed today he called for the “Rolling of heads” something people who have dealt with ISIL might consider inflammatory language.

I’m sure there’s something in the journalistic creed about reporting…mind you Tony seemed to be the kind of reporter that most reporters only ever dream about being, someone who can editorialise from behind the desk of someone who is supposed to be reporting.

Surely the purpose of Q&A is to specifically bring people of dissenting opinions together to engage in a discussion. Something sadly Tony Jones forgot as he ran the panel. It is a show where there can’t be false balance as people are brought on specifically to be faced by their detractors.

As to any claims of “Bias” or “Audience Stacking” I suggest you go look at some numbers. Any government that was voted in with only 45.55% of the vote and with a Prime Minster with an approval rating hovering around 29% has to realise that means that there is a large proportion of the population that does not support them, their leader or what they are doing. Therefore when faced with an opportunity to vent this frustration those people might speak out. If you can’t take this kind of criticism, which you clearly have issues with, I suggest you retire to Bali.

Another reality you might have to face (just a heads up) is that people might not take kindly to you stepping on freedom of speech or freedom of the press. Now I realise that we don’t have freedom of speech enshrined in our constitution (unlike another large European settled nation I could name) but our founders did expect that freedom of speech and freedom of the press are things that any well run nation should expect for its citizens. And that means that people from time to time might have to listen to unpopular opinion. (like every time Tony opens his mouth). Or controversial opinion, or opinion that might be considered uncouth. And it’s easy to defend speech that we agree with, a much harder task to defend speech that we don’t like but! This is the price for the society that we build. Not agreeing with your fellow Australians and not throwing them in jail or throwing a childish hissy fit when a broadcaster allows something you don’t agree with to go to air should be the duty of every Australian. Mr Dutton you have failed in that duty as has Tony Abbot and by en large the Labor party too. Those in power need to be criticised. We need to “Keep the bastards honest”. It is the duty of every citizen to “Speak truth to power” and that truth can only be found in your heart. That freedom, the freedom to say what we truly believe should be cherished, nurtured and kept and never be allowed to be take away from us. And if being on “Team Australia” means that I have to crush opinions that are not my own then fuck “Team Australia” I’m resigning my membership right now and no amount of flags will get me back. Oh and if you’re thinking “Maybe this letter constitutes terrorism, maybe I can get this guy’s citizenship revoked?” I’m white.

Kind Regards

Chris Tyler

The Sky is Falling…again…

Oh the terrible, terrible things that might happen if gay people get married.
Oh the family unit!! There was what looked suspiciously like a blog post from a Catholic priest this morning in The Age stating that the best outcome for a child is still a father and mother. Wellasmaybe (even though there actually isn’t any evidence for it, studies show that the best outcome for a child is a united unit of people who are financially stable and take an interest in the child and also to keep them away from Catholic Priests) but the reality is that same sex couples aren’t waiting for marriage equality to raise children.

Although this one looks ok, he's got a kind of Obi Wan vibe to him.

Although this one looks ok, he’s got a kind of Obi Wan vibe to him.


Having children isn’t keeping opposite sex couples together and being a couple who lives together doesn’t make you good parents. Welcome to the real world! We have t-shirts! Children have been raised in less than ideal circumstances since the beginning of the human race and if we are to wait for some strange utopia to fall from the heaven where there is no poverty, universal education, everyone makes good decisions, couples always stay together, and there is no psychological or physical abuse then no-one will be having children at all.
Frankly if I lived with a couple who loved each other, were financially stable and loved me then that’s the best outcome I can hope for and their sex would trouble me not at all. I would count myself lucky and wonder what all the fuss was about.
"Guess how much I care about sexuality as opposed to....oh I don't know FINGERPAINTING!!!OMG!"

“Guess how much I care about sexuality as opposed to….oh I don’t know FINGERPAINTING!!!OMG!”


There are two issues here really.
1. The government wants a say in marriage, this is linked to religion but separate. The government having a say in marriage and who can and can’t be married is legislating morality, something that I am forcefully against and you should be too (why? Because I said so, isn’t it obvious? Oh ok, because morality isn’t objective and because not everything the government says is moral, is in fact moral)
2. Religion wants a say in marriage, and some religious people seem to think that religion (against scripture and against logic) requires consensus. That people who are not religious (or not the same kind of religious) should be following rules that they don’t agree with and if they don’t then the religion is weakened somehow. The idea that my disagreement with your doctrine invalidates your doctrine either reveals weakness in your belief or in your doctrine.
No it does not help that the people who are in governmental power at the moment are also religious conservatives. But to my thinking if you are gay, AND religious then if you want to get married in a church then that is something for your own conscience and a discussion with your priest/minister/rabbi. There seems to be little point arguing that the Christian Bible says some fairly unflattering things about homosexuality and yes, even in the New Testament (although not by Jesus, he was too interested in getting you into heaven and what the money lenders were doing).
Detractors say that this might lead to polygamy! Once again, you’re behind the times, polyamory happens and probably a lot more than you think. If people want to cement that union then go for it! I think you’ll have trouble finding a priest/minister/rabbi who will do the job but anyone wanting to be a polygamy celebrant might want to brush up on their pluralisation.
Is it me or is young Paul McCartney marrying Young Paul McCartney?

Is it me or is young Paul McCartney marrying Young Paul McCartney?


Bottom line is that I don’t really know what people are upset about. Ok so if the government changes the meaning of marriage in the law so what?!? This is just like those idiots who think a bad movie can ruin a good book. Your personal definition of marriage, which is really all you ever had anyway does not need to change, why do you need the government to re-enforce your beliefs? If your religious and you believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, then great! Don’t marry outside of that definition. It’s like those morons who are threatening to get divorced if the definition of marriage changes. What they are saying is “My faith is so weak that it can’t take other people disagreeing with it, so I’m going to take my bat and ball and go home”.
If you believe that marriage is between Man, Woman and God (I notice that he never gets mentioned during the divorce) then the best protest I can possibly think of would be to live life according to your beliefs and demonstrate and emblemise those beliefs through a good productive marriage. You know, just like same sex couples want to do.