 |
|
 The Greens are the most thin-skinned party in Australian Politics. When critisised they will use every legal tactic possible to silence their opposition critics, including abusing their position as a parliamentary party to launch bogus senate inquiries.At the same time, they have the audacity to complain when they suffer the same treatment at the hands of the Gunns Logging Company who are suing two Greens MPs for statements they've made. This is another case of the "do as I say not as I do" attitude of the Green Hypocrites.  Bob Brown - Complains about being sued by Gunns yet launches legal action against critics. What the Greens Say About Legal Action Against ThemSenator Bob Brown: This law suit is clearly intended to bully into silence community members who are attempting to exercise their democratic right to speak out. ^ Senator Kerry Nettle: NSW Greens senator Kerry Nettle branded Gunns' move an attack on free speech and warned it could have drastic consequences for political discussion in Australia. MLC Lee Rhiannon: "..pulling out all stops to censor public debate.. at a time when robust open debate.. is urgently needed. Senator Christine Milne: an ethical answer can only be found by inclusive, vigorous public debate and not by silencing dissent.. where the community can speak out without fear of being sued. ^ The Greens Response When Criticised
 The Greens behaviour when criticised. Silencing Labor DissentDuring the Victorian Election, the Greens arranged a dirty preference deal with their arch enemies the Liberal Party in a bid to take seats from their traditional allies in the Labor Party. Labor campaigned hard against this deal. The Greens responded with legal action. A scanned fax of the legal threat sent to the Labor Party below:  The Threatening Fax sent to the Labor Party by the Greens during the Victorian Election.  Family First's Free Speech is silenced. Silencing Family First DissentDuring the Federal Election, Family First ran television advertisements rightly labelling the Greens as "The Extreme Greens". The Greens were shocked at this use of Free Speech in way way they didn't like, and threatened Family First with legal action. ^ TV ADVERTISEMENT: Heroin, ecstasy, the Greens want to legalise the whole lot. "They're giving my kids easy access to marijuana." Don't risk the extreme Greens holding the balance of power. ^ They threatened legal action saying the ads were defamatory because The Greens don't support the legalisation of those drugs^, however if you examine the Greens Drug Policy at the 2004 Election you'll see: 1.2 ..personal use of currently illegal drugs should be moved outside the criminal framework.. The Greens disgusting tactics worked and Family First withdrew their correct portrayal of the Greens Policies. The public was denied the benefit of hearing the truth - dissent successfully silenced by the Greens Legal Team. Greens Dirty Tactics 1 - Free Speech 0 Despite Family First withdrawing their Television Advertisements: Anything to silence the dissenting voices.  The Herald Sun's Free Speech is silenced. Silencing Herald Sun DissentDuring the Federal Election the Herald Sun published an article entitled "Greens back illegal drugs". The Greens, upset at being held to account, immediately complained to the press council. Shockingly to Greenswatch, the Press Council upheld some of their ambit claims based on trivial technicalities such as using strong words such as "force" instead of "discourage". Bob Brown was dismembered by a parliamentary committee over this ruling the Herald Sun quoted in a text box material from your web site, and in every respect the material they quoted had been put on the web site by the Greens—nobody else—and was quoted accurately. To the extent that there was one error there, it was on your web site just a matter of months earlier. in the lead-up to the election you experienced something unique to the Greens: you began to be held accountable, as every other major party is, and people started to question your policies. When that happened, they began to disappear off the web site. Is that a fair proposition? Your section on drugs and addiction says in the first four lines: The regulation of currently illegal drugs should be moved outside the criminal framework. In a democratic society in which diversity is accepted, each person has the opportunity to achieve personal fulfilment. It is understood that the means and aims of fulfilment may vary between people at different stages of their lives and may for some people at particular times involve the use of drugs. That was on your web site at the time the Herald Sun published their article quoting that section. The Herald Sun article finally began to peal away the Green outside layer to expose to rotten mass within.  Greens Members become aggressive and threatening when criticised. Silencing "Tasmanians For A Better Future"During the 2006 Tasmanian Election a group calling itself "Tasmanians for a Better Future" ran glossy TV and press advertisements urging voters not to elect a minority government with the Greens holding the balance of power, advocating a Labor majority outcome as the only safe poll result for Tasmania. The Greens were outraged. They'd been criticised! Greens senator Christine Milne lodged a complaint with the institute about the conduct of Mr Harrison and Corporate Communications. This next comment is particularly scarey for the future of Australia if the Greens achieve power. A nation where free speech against the Greens is curtailed by the law. Yesterday she called for the public relations industry to be regulated from outside so that no more election campaigns could be influenced.^ There is no valid basis for this view in a free democracy. None.  The Greens don't like being criticised - they'll even abuse the senate to attack political opponents. Silencing Brethren DissentThe Exclusive Brethren are a wacky religion, but in Australia even members of wacky religions have the right to freedom of speech. Not according to the Greens - campaigning against the Greens should be illegal. Below is a leaflet produced by the Exclusive Brethren that points out the Greens dangerous drug and economic policies.  Brethren Leaflet - Page 1. Note the legally correct "Authorised By" (hard to see) bottom middle.  Brethren Leaflet - Page 2. The Greens don't like this use of Free Speech, because it makes them look bad. They've been running a campaign against the Brethren ever since. The Greens disgusting freedom of speech attack includes:
Despite all the above, the Exclusive Brethren have been found guilty of nothing. Democrats Senator Andrew Bartlett sees through their disgusting tactics: having a politicised Senate Inquiry into just one fundamentalist religious minority who are clearly being singled out amongst all of them because some of their members attacked the Greens at election time smacks.. of an Inquisition.. According to Greens Senator Bob Brown: "My bead on the Exclusive Brethren is that they have legal advice and anything inside the law is fine by them.." ^ Bob Brown realises their behaviour is 100% within the law, so why is he using "anything inside the law" himself to attack them ? The complaints, inquiry attempts and calls for police intervention aren't because the Exclusive Brethren have done anything wrong. They haven't. They are all because the Greens are upset at being critisised.  Silencing The Newcastle Herald. Silencing The Newcastle HeraldThe Newcastle Herald wrote an article critical of the Greens' Rates Policy. As readers will by now be aware, this is a crime according to the Greens hypocritical view of Free Speech - you guessed it, the Greens complained to the Press Council.^ This is a deliberate strategy by the Greens to punish the voices of dissent. To teach them the Greens must not be questioned. According to the Press Council: the Herald provided ample space to both sides of the issue, and readers generally would have had no cause to believe they were being misled as to what was fact and what was opinion.^ The Newcastle Herald should have known better than to critique the thin-skinned Greens, who feel free to criticise everyone else, but cry foul at the first sign of pressure.  Silencing The Courier Mail. Silencing The Courier MailGreens operative James Hill complained to the Press Council about the Courier Mail's reporting of the Greens. He accused the different writers variously of inaccuracy; of misrepresenting the breadth of the Greens political platform; and of unreasonably wanting the Greens to make public the allocation of their voting preferences - an expectation incompatible, in his view, with the party's principle of "grass-roots participatory democracy".^ The thin-skinned Greens can't stand the criticism that is regularly dished out to every other party. They tactically launch actions like this to silence any opposition thought. Mr Hill has been a regular writer to The Courier-Mail, protesting its coverage of these matters. The paper appears to have published none of his letters, possibly because of their vitriolic and, at times, offensive references to journalists.. Mr Hill would better achieve his aim of explaining the party's principles and policies to the public and the press by the submission of publishable letters.^ While free speech won the day, the bother and expense of hiring lawyers and attending hearings will cause the Courier Mail to pause before filing another story exposing the Greens dangerous agenda. All part of the Greens war on criticism. |
|
