Different standards

Thursday, 12 February 2009 

All the outrage about Danny Nalliah blaming the weekend’s terrible events on Victoria’s abortion laws can’t be because people objected to the use of such awful events to make a political point. It must have been because no-one agreed with the point he was making.

After all, far fewer objected to Wilson Tuckey rushing into push his reason for the bushfires, and even less have complained about environmentalists pushing theirs. Maybe next time, before both sides pursue the property v nature debate with so much vigour, they should hold back and wait until investigators have worked out what actually caused the death of so many people.

Posted by The Piping Shrike on Thursday, 12 February 2009.

Filed under Media analysis

Tags:

Comments

5 responses to “Different standards”

  1. Dave from Albury on 12th February 2009 10:53 am

    I think the outrage is over Nalliah’s use of the bushfires and the victims to drive home a completely unrelated moralistic political point.

    For better or worse, the environmental discussions are at least mostly on topic.

  2. Michael Cusack on 12th February 2009 1:35 pm

    Australians are in the main very sceptical about religious pronouncements, particularly if they come from someone like Nalliah outside the religious mainstream. They would be scornfull of his latest rubbish at any time.
    Interesting but predictably hasty is Miranda Devine blaming “greenies” for the fires. I wonder who were to blame for the fires in the same areas in the 1890s, 1920s, 1930s and early 1980s? Avant garde environmentalists?
    No doubt Miranda has a culturally appropriate group of suspects.

  3. charles on 12th February 2009 6:27 pm

    Too much fuel; perhaps.
    Too little clearing near houses; perhaps.
    Abortion reform; not a chance in hell.

  4. Somebody on 13th February 2009 10:35 pm

    I agree with Dave of Albury’s view above. At least there is a link between the environmentalist views and the bushfires; what’s the link between abortion and that? But also they probably dislike her because of her position.

    Conspiracy theory time.

  5. The Piping Shrike on 14th February 2009 10:13 pm

    I agree with most of the sentiments of the comments above. But Danny Nalliah is an easy target. Even Costello, so tolerant of Nalliah’s other lunacies, had no trouble distancing himself from the latest one.

    But I didn’t hear Costello distance himself from Wilson Tuckey.

    A Royal Commission is being set up based on the sound principle that in order to find out what caused the deaths of so many people and make sure it does not happen again, it is first necessary to gather all the evidence and testimonies before making a conclusion about the cause of this tragedy.

    So on what basis are these other commentators making theirs? I can’t see on what grounds they are doing it other than just taking enough of the facts to suit their agenda.

    To me Nalliah’s comments show the anti-human core of these religious cults that put the unborn foetus on a par with those who lost their lives. Quite understandably, people are repelled. But I think there is something also a little sterile about those taking this as an opportunity to pursue a property v nature debate without waiting for the facts on what caused the death of people.

Comments are closed.