This post is really just a bit of nostalgia for me. It takes me back to the days when my sport was to counter the arguments of a rather arrogant barrister who set himself up as the nexus of anti Andrew Bolt sentiment in the bloggosphere. Well Madd McColl has decided to have a go at the same game in this post so read and enjoy. ;)
Firstly, apologies to Jeremy for stepping on his toes as this is usually his department but I noticed he hadn’t written anything yet so….
Jeremy Sear does not have any monopoly on criticising Andrew Bolt MM so there is no need to caress his ego by suggesting otherwise.
But lets look at your claims in detail shall we? MM starts with this lovely little example of twisted logic.
There’s just a few comments in Bolt’s piece that I’ve found to be just plain weird. One of them is this:
‘Incidentally, for more proof, see star Labor candidate Maxine McKew, now fighting Prime Minister John Howard for his seat of Bennelong.
She’s just promised to recognise the “Armenian genocide”, hoping to thrill Bennelong’s 4000 ethnic Armenians.
The nation’s many Turks, however, will be enraged, rightly arguing that the death of hundreds of thousands of Armenians in the wars, famines and inter-ethnic slaughter of the Ottoman Empire’s last years was a tragedy, but no state-ordered genocide.'(Andrew Bolt) This is exactly the kind of rash pronouncement that landed the man in hot water over the Stolen Generation for there is absolutely no way that Andrew Bolt could at all be sure that the Armenian massacre wasn’t a genocide. There is much evidence to suggest it was, yet here this Australian journalist believes he can be sure enough to take the incredible step of denying the massacre was actually planned. Has he know idea of the extent of his crime were he to be proven wrong? Were he to simply say that the evidence isn’t yet conclusive, sure, but outright denial!?
Hang on a minute MM, the point that Andrew is making here is not about the veracity, or otherwise of the claims of genocide but that McKew is playing on this divisive inter ethnic issue not from any principled position or with any definitive proof but to gain political advantage by doing so.
If you actually read what Andrew says you will see that he does not deny even one death occurred, instead he makes the valid point that the Armenians and the Turks see those tragic events differently. It all turns on the very emotive term “genocide” so MM how about you produce proof that the Ottoman Empire actually ORDERED killings extensive enough and systematic enough for that killing to qualify as genocide?
Then there were these comments:
‘Already we can assume Labor in office will kill the federal intervention in the Northern Territory launched by this Government to save Aboriginal communities now drowning in booze, violence, truancy and unemployment.’ (Andrew Bolt)
Can we!!? That’s certainly news to me.
Given the track record of the Labor party I think that Andrew makes a fair call here after all we only have to look to the abysmal track record of the Martin government to see how reluctant the ALP really is to take the necessary hard decisions on indigenous matters. Like wise the interference run by former premier Beattie is a clear indication that Rudd’s support is entirely attributable to his “tiny target” strategy. A stance that will be absolutely redundant should he get the keys to the lodge.
‘Except, of course, we know Labor is infected with the New Racism, and still plays off one tribe against another.’
‘Preserve the tribe! Never mind the individual. And pit one race against another. ‘(Andrew Bolt)
So it was Labor that used race as a device to win the 2001 election. Labor demonised asylum seekers in order to pit the population against these que-jumpers and potential terrorists. It was Labor who pitched the majority against Aborigines by claiming they were receiving special treatment and that the
former should be justly resentful. It was Rudd who questioned the rate of Asian immigration in the 80’s.Well once again this is all news to me.
Andrew is of course correct to make the point that by taking sides in what can only be described as a Turkish version of our own “history wars” is clearly a divisive political move by McKew by any measure she is pitting one group against another in her quest for votes.
Sadly his case is not made by his shallow assertions here and he needs to go back to square one and try again.
The reality is that MM’s focus in this post is quite wrongly directed to what is almost just an aside. The Bolt piece is instead devoted to making the point that all who are born here are in fact indigenous to Australia and that the UN declaration, that MM and I so extensively debated in a previous thread, is both pernicious and divisive. The problems with this declaration are even acknowledged there by MM himself. So perhaps he should try walking the walk that he himself was advocating to me and consider exactly what Andrew has said rather than going off on a cavort to enunciate just a few more times the tired and false claims that the Howard government has a racist heart. Especially when it is his side of politics that wants to create the exceptionalism that is fundamental to the New Racism that Andrew is denouncing in the piece in question.
Cheers Comrades
;)



My My are we angry Iain? Two posts on me in one week I’m priveledged!!
You sad person. This is you at your petty best Iain as my comment was pretty obviously meant to be silly. You must really hate him.
Poor Iain’s made a boo boo! If you’d paid attention to comments Andrew’s made regarding this issue on his blog you’d know where he actually stands, he denies it. Furthermore would you actually read the quote properly for once (again!).
It is clear that he IS making claims “about the veracity, or otherwise of the claims of genocide” Those old eyes of yours are getting tired.
I’m no historian or specialist on the issue Iain and neither’s Andrew, that’s the point. But I have read enough about it to know that killings were spoken of and acknowledged by government officials who incidently approved of the crimes. So how Andrew can definitively state that these killings weren’t planned is a mystery.
What pantomime rubbish Iain. I’ll ignore the glaring partisan analysis and ask, where is your proof that Rudd will ditch the intervention once in power?
Who are you speaking of here?
Yes it was, an aside that Andrew has repeated often.
What a muddled paragraph. So you acknowledge that I have some issues with the Declaration as it stands, then you state that your problem is that I haven’t addressed what Andrew’s said? My comments followed Bolt’s so how you can argue this is beyond me. Also, I actually provided circumstances where the Howard government has played one tribe against the other in order to show how hypocritical Bolt was being. You haven’t at all addressed this so I’ll assume you believe my comments to be valid.
Honestly Iain this is pretty poor form. Did my “Iain Hall Supports Ritual Human Sacrifice” really get you this angry? Don’t you think people are getting sick of reading about me now?
MM why do you assume that I have to be angry to write about one of your posts? I was amused by your ritual human sacrifice piece and I have tried to enter in to the right spirit in my response. Have you, by the way managed to read all 700 posts on this blog yet? Because you never know what outrageous things that I have said in those many thousands of words now do you?
As I say in the introduction, your post inspired certain nostalgia and I could not resist having a go But absolutely no anger was involved OK?
But to address your point about Genocide it all turns on the extent to which there was a deliberate attempt to wipe out an entire race, without such deliberate intention even the most brutal actions don’t quite reach the tipping point between massacres and genocide do they? Demonstrate such deliberate intention if you want to make your case or admit that you just opine that it was genocide. Simple!
Nah not a bit but so many of you minions all seem to want to put him up on a pedestal and I have a tendency to make sarcastic comments when ever his name is mentioned.
Where is his commitment to see the changes through? They are most notable by their absence. Part of the tiny target strategy is of course to keep very quiet about such things , rather like some of the other les palatable leftist policies that are just waiting to burst out as soon as Rudd has the keys to the lodge.
Why you of course.
But in the context of the post that you cite it is only a minute part of his argument yet it was the focus of your post. So perhaps if you really want to make a big thing about perhaps you would have been better served by citing where else that he has made such claims.
Well no actually I say that your suggestions that the Howard government have acted from a racist heart is very wrong. In any case you seem to be suggesting that because Andrew bolt is a conservative then he must by definition be in lockstep with the government on all of the issues that you cite as sins of the Howard government. That is an incrediblely facile argument. I could well suggest that you are responsible for the foibles of the communists because you are a leftie and I bet you would soon claim that mine is a flawed argument. So it’s goose and Gander times don’t you think?
Nah It made me laugh I have had some far worse claims made about me in the past at least you had the good sense to try to be amusing about it.
Cheers
PS
Don’t tell me that you have not enjoyed the argument so far?
.
OK, look I wasn’t really meaning “ANGER”, I was engaging a bit of baiting. I could tell that you got the joke in regards to my ritual sacrifice piece don’t worry. All 700!? Hell No!!
Yes I’m aware of what constitutes ‘genocide’ Iain and in the strictest use of the term Pol Pot’s massacre would hardly come under that title (due to the removal of provisions which made the wiping out of political enemies “genocide”, though there was an element of actual “genocide” as well). But the Armenian case is quite different as they were a distinct people subjected to systematic killing. It’s a contentious issue both politically and socially for many reasons.
Considering all the questions and points of mine you’ve deliberately dodged this week Iain I shouldn’t really be responding to this. But as far as I’m aware, as I’ve said, there’s plenty of evidence for the case of genocide. There’s enough there to warrant caution from Bolt when he moves to deny it, but instead he boldly announces it to be false to the Australian public. This is an extrordinary thing for him to do.
I have a book on the alledged genocide Iain so I can’t link, but I’ll write a few quotes from Mehmed Talaat the Turkish Interior Minister who oversaw the killings and the U.S ambassador (keep in mind that the response was to the percieved enemy within during WWI, the Armenians). The U.S ambassador detailed his discussions on the event:
Talaat was questioned about it and he snapped:
A comment to a German reporter:
Talaat once asked the U.S ambassador if he could get some New York life insurance companies to send lists of all the Armenians they had covered. When probed for his intentions he said:
The Ambassador wrote angrily to the U.S Government to do something:
Iain I could go on and on but you get the picture. The U.S Abassador at the time was certain that it was state sanctioned from his discussions with the Government. Now look at Bolt’s quote again:
Some caution from Bolt would have been wise don’t you now agree?
They have bi-partisan support. Where’s your evidence he won’t?
What’s the point as it seems you’ve accepted that you misread his quote.
It’s precisely because I focused on his side comments that I called it “Bolt’s Bizarre Comments”, it was never meant to address his whole piece at all. Big deal.
Iain he was highlighting the Labor Party as playing off tribe against tribe, I pointed out how partisan this was. Anyway, I believe that he actually is pretty much in lockstep with the Gov on the vast majority of issues I’d referred to. So that line kinda fell flat Iain.
Clearly I’ve been having a ball.