Ding! It’s Round 3 of Sheik Yer’Mami vs journalist Gavin King, and this time it seems the head of the Australian Press Council is without the will to punish King, but he’s more than ready to be accusatory in his mailed remarks to the Sheik. But he’s not accusing Gavin King –
Winds Of Jihad: Australian Press Council backs Gavin King, accuses Blogger of �no analogous consideration for the safety of the journalist � by Sheik yer’mami
Here’s a blurb from the above link to Sheik Yer’Mami’s full article on the most recent details:
Further it now appears that you have widened your campaign to include references on the website, not only to your opposition to the mosque proposal but to an attack on the by-lined journalist. You suggested in your original letter that you feared for your safety and that of your family as a result of the Post article. Yet you have indicated no analogous consideration for the safety of the journalist whose image and details you have published on the web. Instead of seeking to find a resolution to your concerns with the newspaper, through the Council, by completion of the waiver and the complaint form, you have sought a form of revenge on the journalist.
This is an outrageous attempt at equivalence. Sheik Yer’Mami’s life is in danger, and if this Australian Press Council wishes to try to equate that to Gavin King being outed as the betrayer he is, and perhaps getting a beating he deserves, then there’s something really rotten in the Press Rooms of Australia! Not to mention, considering that since it was I that lit the largest fire under these stories prior to it finally reaching Dhimmi Watch, the Australian Press Council might now like to accuse me? Please, I dare you to even intimate that I do not have the grounds to address this story in full. I had not only a right but a duty to show no more regard for Gavin King than he ever did for Sheik Yer’ Mami.
If it’s the truth the members of the Australian Press Council fear, then I suppose that’s why they are attempting to point fingers of blame at everyone besides Mr. King.
Perhaps Gavin King is just the symptom of a far worse problem in the Australian Press. I already know that too many members of American Journalism are out-of-whack, but now I guess I’ve learned that this isn’t necessarily a situation unique to the U.S. of A.
Short URL link to this post: http://xrl.us/vjns
Podcasts Archive
Journalism has become the last refuge of scoundrels. People used to knock the National Enquirer but compared to what passes for journalism today those were they days.
I find it laughable that Gavin King is being equated with the Sheik.
Who will threaten King? King is scum, pandering to lowlifes-nobody will bother him. Meanwhile, the Sheik will have to watch his back for the forseeable future because he tells it like it is. What a depraved world we live in.
Foehammer, keep up the good work! I wish the world had more people like you and the Sheik. King is a wanker “journalist”, which takes neither intelligence nor hard work.
Great work FH!
The response Sheik received is disgusting. They are trying to deflect all responsibility.
I am really glad this story has made your site, LGF and JWDW as well as Sheik’s site.
Things are ramping up and we need to know who we can count on. The MSM will one day be identified as true collaborators as this is exactly what they are doing. Our precious western democracies are in grave danger, and we can thank people like this GK and his paper as well as the islamofacists.
I just can’t wait to see what the next phase of this turns into. I feel that Sheik should sue, but the problem then is that it will force his identity further out into the open.
Journalists today try to make themselves part of the story. That’s the problem with Gavin King, and it’s been the problem with far too many news-hounds since Watergate.
You have a good point there, FH.
It has restrained me from emailing it to other MSM ‘blogs like Andrew Bolt’s ‘blog.
The ony thing is that people who get this newspaper would already know about Sheik.He needs a top Australian barrister but since most are lefties,,would one trust them?
Fox News frequently has its credibility questioned based on certain stakeholders that may find such a story ‘offensive’. I wonder if the Australian Press does not share the same sickness. I’ll bet David Hicks is a hero to them.
Geoff,
Hicks is a traitor to me and many Aussies.
http://www.farisqc.observationdeck.org/
This is a link to the ‘blog of a QC. (Queens Counsel - top barrister).
He has a good piece on Hicks.
The left are having trouble believing this little creep is guilty. They are making a big deal about him being “ilegally detained” in Gitmo. To me this is a red herring as the war on terror is still on.Apart from that Hicks constantly challenged everything and hence to the trial was postponed. Most Aussies I know consider him a terrorist who has now confessed.
Gramfan-
I figure most Aussies to be very down to earth and maintaining a firm grasp on common sense. I was attributing the ‘hero’ status of Hicks to the press down under. Seems only extremist regimes know how to deal with traitors these days.
Geoff,
I will copy and paste this link(below). It is pretty spot on.
Yes I agree re the press: especially the lefty press and tv!!
theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21491879-7583,00.html
No winners at Gitmo
Due process concerns of Hicks boosters fall apart in plea deal
AS the dust settles on the hastily engineered (and increasingly troubling) sentencing deal to bring David Hicks home to Australia, it is worthwhile reminding ourselves of just how we came to this point and the real role the admitted terrorist’s supporters had in delaying and ultimately perverting justice. For within the legal timeline of Hicks’s case is strong evidence that his supporters, despite their claims to be interested in due legal process, have in fact surfed the shifting sands of jurisprudence every step of the way. When Hicks was caught in Afghanistan by the Northern Alliance in December 2001, the world was still reeling from the September 11 attacks. There was no active legal regime either in the US or Australia available to try terrorists such as Hicks, and there was no state of war declared with Afghanistan. Thus the demands by human rights lawyers and anti-Howard activists to bring Hicks home were, before the introduction of anti-terror laws, little more than an attempt to let off on a technicality a man who by his own admission fired bullets into India for Lashkar-e-Toiba and declared his intent to end “Western-Jewish domination”. Later, when anti-terrorism statutes were passed, the pleas to bring Hicks home and try him in an Australian court died out over concerns he would be tried retrospectively. Meanwhile, Hicks’s lawyers, ably led by US Major Michael Mori, pursued a canny strategy of appeals that kept Hicks in jail while building public sympathy.
While normally protection against retroactive prosecution is the hallmark of a civilised legal system, an overweening adherence to this principle is all but suicidal when it allows people who were in cahoots with the terrorists who pulled off the September 11 attacks to walk free. US military commissions have existed since 1942, despite their controversy. The doctrine of “unlawful combatants” was not dreamed up out of thin air by the Bush administration but rather defined by the US Supreme Court in a case dealing with Nazi saboteurs who had made clandestine submarine landings along the US east coast. And Hicks’s well-fed appearance and revelations that he studied maths while incarcerated debunk the sort of overheated claims of mistreatment repeatedly retailed by his supporters.
Although his supporters may never admit it, Hicks got a spectacularly good deal — thanks not to the due process they called for, but rather to politics. Compared to convicted American terrorist John Walker Lindh, currently serving a 20-year sentence in a US federal penitentiary for training for a few weeks with the Taliban, the fact Hicks will be walking the streets in nine months after being accused of far worse is nothing short of extraordinary. Those human rights groups who complain about the backroom nature of the sentencing deal are being at best disingenuous and at worst daft. Had Hicks’s case been tested in court, they would have risked far more information about his activities entering the public domain. And the fact that Hicks was defended so well at US taxpayers’ expense should put to rest once and for all any notion that Hicks was railroaded in some sort of kangaroo court. Major Mori, unlike the prosecution, understood that Hicks’s case was as much about publicity as law. There is a broader lesson in all this for the Australian Government as it pursues other terror cases through the courts — namely, that transparency must exist to the highest degree possible so society retains confidence in the system that prosecutes those who would bring it down. Sadly, there is another lesson in this as well, which will surely be picked up by accused terrorists: when in trouble, first call a publicist — and then a lawyer.