Human rights abuses happen everywhere, including Australia. Amnesty International has today released a report on human rights, which is critical of Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers and Aboriginal people. Claire Mallinson discusses the report’s findings and takes a look at the effect of digital media on the fight for human rights.

When Burma’s pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi was released after 15 years under house arrest late last year, one of the first things she commented on was how she had missed the digital revolution.

That may be so, but the digital revolution did not miss her. When she stepped out on to the balcony of her home she was greeted by a sea of supporters, mobiles phones held aloft and eager thumbs pressing buttons. Within seconds her picture could be seen on web sites, the internet and 24-hour news channels around the world.

This year from the streets of Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Bahrain, Iran, Syria and Yemen the daily images of thousands of ordinary men and women defying tanks, military snipers and armed troops were streamed to millions of people around the world via digital media.

Day after day they stood in defiance of those who have ruled them for decades, saying: “enough is enough”.

These ordinary men and women simply asked for political, religious and economic freedom – freedom to work, freedom to be educated, and freedom to live in a society that allows them to speak their minds without fear of being arrested, beaten, tortured or possibly killed.

Arguably, not since the end of the Cold War have so many repressive governments faced such a challenge to their hold on power.

Protesters in North Africa and the Middle East have shown that human rights gains are not “granted” by governments but seized and won by the people.

Despite what some governments might say, human rights are indeed universal; these protesters are proving that everyone deserves and craves freedom of expression, and an end to social and economic injustice.

Indeed, we have seen remarkable diversity and unity among protesters of different ages, backgrounds, and political and religious affiliations, with a notably prominent role played by women, whose voices have not been heard for generations.

We have seen governments responding with familiar and long-standing methods of repression – excessive use of force, mass arrests and torture – but this has often only made protesters more determined for change.

Since Amnesty International came into being 50 years ago the message has remained the same even though the method of delivery has changed.

Fifty years ago, when London lawyer Peter Benenson began a letter campaign to urge governments around the world to free men and women being held for their political or religious views, the message was delivered via telex, radio, first generation television and newspapers.

Today that message can be delivered live to millions of people around the world.

However, those who fight against human rights also have access to the technology and are using it to counter human rights activists. And if that does not work they resort to what they know best – brute force.

Today Amnesty International issues its annual report – The State of the World’s Human Rights - published in more than 25 languages and covering 157 countries from the most affluent to the desperately poor.

In the Asia-Pacific the report highlights the release of Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi.

It reviews the jailing of Chinese dissident and writer Liu Xiaobo for his role in drafting Charter 08, a manifesto for a more responsive and inclusive government in China. And the life sentence handed down to Indian doctor and activist Binayak Sen for criticising both the Indian government and Maoist groups for the spiralling violence in central India.

In Australia, one of the world’s wealthiest countries, Amnesty International has been critical of the Government’s treatment of asylum seekers and its own indigenous peoples.

Last year, for example, the Government reinstated the Racial Discrimination Act but only partially restored protection of human rights.  The Act had been suspended in Northern Territory Aboriginal communities since the 2007 government intervention.  Disproportionate imprisonment rates for Indigenous Peoples continue to blight Australia’s human rights record.

If you are Aboriginal, you are 14 times more likely than a non-Indigenous person to be put in jail.  Twenty years after Australia’s most significant inquiry into Aboriginal deaths in custody, people are still waiting for justice and most of the recommendations sit unaddressed.

Short-term solutions continue to be the hallmarks of refugee policy in Australia.

Given that it is legal to seek asylum, an end to mandatory, offshore and remote immigration detention is well overdue. In the last few days we have seen the Government announce a deal in which it will send asylum seekers to Malaysia.

If Australia is to ensure it is not complicit in abuse, any bilateral agreement with Malaysia must include an agreement that it stops caning, ends torture and signs the Refugee Convention.

Even so, we at Amnesty International remain optimistic. Events this year in North Africa and the Middle East have shown powerful governments, which have underestimated the burning desire of people everywhere for freedom and justice, that they must now back reform rather than the politics of repression that went before. 

Most commented

58 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Erick says:

      09:38am | 13/05/11

      “Since Amnesty International came into being 50 years ago the message has remained the same even though the method of delivery has changed.”

      This is completely untrue. Fifty years ago, Amnesty International had one issue, and one issue only: the release of political prisoners. As such, it presented a powerful voice that had broad support in the community, since nearly everyone could agree with that single issue.

      In recent years, though, Amnesty has been captured by a far-left clique, and agitates on all sorts issues that have nothing to do with its original goals - or with human rights in general. Amnesty campaigns for illegal immigration, associates itself with extreme Islamists, and promotes misandry. It is no longer an organisation that should be respected or listened to.

    • fml says:

      10:04am | 13/05/11

      Erick,

      Its not illegal, it has everything to do with human rights.

      So Now that its branched out to cover more areas of human rights abuse its now irrelevant?

      How has it got nothing to do with human rights in general? How does it associate with Islamic Extremists?

      Why do you seem to have a problem with people that are doing good in this world?

    • Markus says:

      10:27am | 13/05/11

      I do love how Claire made the statement that ‘the message has remained the same’, then for the remainder of the article went into a detailed explanation as to how much the ‘message’ had completely changed.

    • Dave says:

      11:01am | 13/05/11

      And what if it has, Markus?  Does that make it any less important or any more trivial?

    • Markus says:

      11:35am | 13/05/11

      When the claim is made that their original goal of defending the rights of political prisoners has not changed, only to go on to list a bunch of issues that are not related to political prisoners, and not even related to violations of human rights, it does make the article lack a certain amount of credibility, yes.

    • Ryan says:

      11:44am | 13/05/11

      @Dave: please refer to Ericks post.

    • ZSRenn says:

      11:49am | 13/05/11

      Erick Well said!

      For along time now I have stopped listening to the rants from AI.

      I do not know where the money is coming from that keeps it running but there is an agenda here and it isn’t human rights.

    • Geoff - Brisbane says:

      12:30pm | 13/05/11

      @ ZSren - School Children.

      Amnesty International gets its funds off of Australian school children. It presents them with sob stories and lectures about how we are greedy and should feel bad for living in the west. This went on from year 4 to year 10.

      In years 11 and 12 students could see through their bullshit and thus amnesty did not bother with these grades.

    • Markus says:

      01:09pm | 13/05/11

      Wow Geoff, I had completely forgotten about those donation appeals during primary school until you brought it up.

      And people are obsessing about the Chaplaincy program as a dangerous organisation indoctrinating our children…

    • Jon says:

      01:27pm | 13/05/11

      I use to be member years ago, but something has gone horribly wrong with Amnesty. Gita Sahgal a highly respected lifelong human rights activist and head of Amnesty’s gender unit, questioned the human rights group’s links to Islamic radicals, it suspended her. Now she fears for her safety.

      Amnesty provide ways for unqualified and self-serving people to acquire money, influence, and power; and their income depends upon manipulating public opinion, which means garnering support from politicians, other bureaucracies, and the elites. But shield themselves from any form of accountability.

    • Marilyn Shepherd says:

      06:19pm | 13/05/11

      How many times a day do you jerk your knees when human rights or refugees are mentioned so you can be the very first to abuse them as illegal immigrants?

      There are no illegal immigrants in Australia.  Not a single blessed one.  And when we jail refugees and use them as pawns in our disgsuting games then they are political prisoners because the only reason for their detention is unknown to anyone.

    • Barry says:

      06:36pm | 13/05/11

      @Marilyn
      Actually, it’s only unknown to idiots who have problems understanding logic.

    • jules says:

      09:43pm | 13/05/11

      John Howard seemed opposed to an Australian Bill of Rights.  I wonder why?

    • acotrel says:

      09:49pm | 13/05/11

      @Barry
      John Howard well understood the logic in denying asylum seekers access to the courts through a writ of habeas corpus The High Court of Australia recently told him what he already knew - that his actions were ILLEGAL !!

    • acotrel says:

      09:54pm | 13/05/11

      @Erick Amnesty International promotes misandry?  What a pack of feminist b*stards? They probably advance the cause for ordination of women. Then the bible will be thought of as a lot of old wive’s tales?

    • Carbon Dogg says:

      09:45am | 13/05/11

      Is there any difference between Aboriginal and other conviction rates? Because otherwise, if they’re committing that much more crime, they deserve to be arrested. Likewise, you keep mentioning the Deaths in Custody Report, yet fail to note that it did not find indigenous prisoners had a higher mortality rate than others.

      Amnesty needs to stop hitching progressive politics to the rhetoric of rights.

    • James1 says:

      09:56am | 13/05/11

      “If you are Aboriginal, you are 14 times more likely than a non-Indigenous person to be put in jail.  Twenty years after Australia’s most significant inquiry into Aboriginal deaths in custody, people are still waiting for justice and most of the recommendations sit unaddressed.”

      The first sentence tells me that Indigenous Australians commit crimes at 14 times the rate of non-Indigenous Australians.  The second sentence shamefully leaves out a vital piece of context - that Aboriginal deaths in custody are exactly in proportion with non-Indigenous deaths in custody (it was in the report to which you refer even).  Seems a little racist to only focus on one ethnic group’s deaths in custody, when the situation is the same in other ethnic groups…

    • Matt says:

      10:47am | 13/05/11

      Spot on James1. I read the same thing recently that there was no proportional differences between deaths in custody.

    • St. Michael says:

      10:56am | 13/05/11

      @ James1: “The first sentence tells me that Indigenous Australians commit crimes at 14 times the rate of non-Indigenous Australians.”

      Probably that guess is about right, but the real question—and what I suspect Amnesty has avoided because they can’t prove it—is:

      If an indigenous and a non-indigenous person came before a magistrate/judge with the same criminal record, same personal history, and the same seriousness of offence, would they both receive a jail term, and would the jail term be of the same rough length?

      The answer, I suspect, would be “yes” because from my experience courts are colour-blind.  If you come from the same crappy background, no schooling, etc., etc., a court is just as likely to dish out a custodial sentence as it is a non-custodial.  If you’re a no-hoper with no support committing crimes since age 12 because you’re still trying to get over your sexual abuse from your uncle, it really doesn’t matter whether you’re black or white, you’re going to get a prison term.

      The real issue, which if anyone wanted to be other than superficial about it they’d ask, is this: *why* are indigenous Australians committing crime at a much higher rate than the non-indigenous population?

      The answer, again and again: alcohol + drugs + child abuse + no fathers + early familiarity with the justice system.  That’s a much bigger, confrontational, and nuanced problem than screaming the imprisonment rate is 14 times higher for indigenous people than non-indigenous.  As others have said: this is not a human rights issue, it is a poverty and societal issue.  It is not Amnesty’s responsibility.

    • Slick says:

      12:11pm | 13/05/11

      St Michael,
      “If an indigenous and a non-indigenous person came before a magistrate/judge with the same criminal record, same personal history, and the same seriousness of offence, would they both receive a jail term, and would the jail term be of the same rough length?

      The answer, I suspect, would be “yes” because from my experience courts are colour-blind.”

      I disagree. I live in the NT and we have multiple cases of domestic abuse, manslaughter, and general drunken fighting. If you read the NT news, most days there will be that a case has gone before court, and the indigenious person has received a 2 year suspended sentance. A caucasian male however will receive 3m-5yrs jail.
      The excuse of “I only stabbed her a little bit boss and she never die before” is used as a joke because you know that it is the true defence used.
      One particular case was an indigenious lady who ran from her abusive partner into a neighbours house for protection. When her partner followed her in he seemed peaceful they all sat down and he went to make a cup of tea, he boiled the kettle then walked into the lounge room and poured the boiling water over her head.
      She is now permentaly disfigured and suffers serious pain.
      He received 3 years, 18mths no parol. That was considered a really good outcome.
      If he was not indigenious how long do you think he would receive?

    • St. Michael says:

      12:34pm | 13/05/11

      @ Slick: Read my post again, because you are committing the same intellectual fallacy as Amnesty is, albeit in the opposite direction.

      Prior criminal record and antecedents weigh fairly significantly into sentencing decisions.  How they’re interpreted can vary. 

      For example: someone who’s bashed their neighbour for the first time in their 45-year-old life is generally going to get a lighter sentence than someone who’s been bashing cops, women, and other assorted folk since he was 12.

      On the other hand: the person who’s been bashing people for his whole life might well have had so many jail terms he’s spent 75% of his life behind bars.  There comes a point where locking a person up yet again for a long time doesn’t actually help and predisposes towards institutionalisation.  That concern also influences sentencing.  That is not a sentencing based on race.  It is a sentencing based on the person’s antecedents.

      If your point is that indigenous people are the subject of reverse racism in the custodial system in that they get lesser sentences than they should, that’s one thing.  But I would still have said the antecedents and prior record drive the sentencing, not race of itself.

      Another reason, I could concede, is that people who have no money are usually going to be locked up for defaulting on paying fines a lot more, since, well, if you ain’t got the money to pay the fine, you’re going to have to go to jail.  You have to have a sanction to enforce fines somewhere.  But again that is more a statement on indigenous poverty and society, not on racial sentencing.

    • James1 says:

      03:08pm | 13/05/11

      Couldn’t agree more St Michael.  If we start asking questions like that, we might start to actually understand the nature of the problem.  This will lead to the communities subject to such conditions looking inward for solutions, all of which require a higher level of personal responsibility and changes in behaviour.  So instead they blame governments, legal systems, and everyone else.  I have seen it first hand in a (predominantly white) government housing neighbourhood.

    • Matt says:

      10:13am | 13/05/11

      “Disproportionate imprisonment rates for Indigenous Peoples continue to blight Australia’s human rights record.”

      If you want less indigenous peoples in imprisonment, then have them stop breaking the law!

    • papachango says:

      03:31pm | 13/05/11

      I agree, but AI opposed the very intervention that was designed to address the problem of Aboriginal crime and disadvantage.

      Not only that but they refused to even acknowledge that the intervention was intended to address dysfunction in remote communities. If they’d acknowledged that but gave a reasoning why they thought it was the wrong approach I might have listened to their views and had a bit more respect for them. But instead they chose to go down the path of screaming ‘raaaacist’

      It seems they value leftwing ideology over practicality.

    • fairsfair says:

      03:45pm | 13/05/11

      I posted this on the open thread at the beginning of the week

      http://www.cairns.com.au/article/2011/05/07/162611_local-news.html

      I think it kind of edges toward what you are saying, but I still can’t work out if I think it is well worded or not.

      As you will see from the comments, taking that view is widely received as racism. It is such a shame that we can not have an adult discussion about this topic in 2011 without people cracking out the R word.

    • papachango says:

      05:26pm | 13/05/11

      The R word is now used as a mechanism to shut down debate, instead of identifiying a view that a particular ethinc/racial group is superior or inferior to others or should be given favourable/unfavourable treatment. It cheapens the word, and de-emphasises the problem of geniune, mailicious racism.

      Just look at the recent court case of a well known News Limited columnist.

    • acotrel says:

      11:28am | 14/05/11

      Who sells alcohol to the aborigines.  Surely they must take some responsibility for their ‘crimes’?

    • fairsfair says:

      05:11pm | 14/05/11

      Yes Acotrel, because “King of Knives” is also responsible for every stabbing to have ever happened….

      I agree, access is part of the issue - but as that article implies, one must want to create change within ones own life for it to happen.

    • Markus says:

      10:22am | 13/05/11

      “Given that it is legal to seek asylum, an end to mandatory, offshore and remote immigration detention is well overdue.”
      I fail to see why. Those in detention aren’t being imprisoned, only being held until such a time as their identification and claim can be verified.

      To avoid this process they could always try entering the country legally with a Visa, which ensures they have already passed the required security and health checks.

      If neither of the above options are acceptable, they are free to leave at any time, to head back to whatever country they came from.

    • fml says:

      03:03pm | 13/05/11

      Its easy to propose solutions without bullets raining down on your head, or watching your kids play in fields with no land mines.

    • Markus says:

      03:58pm | 13/05/11

      Funny, I’m yet to hear of any of Australia’s detention centres having bullets raining down or being infested with landmines.

      You’d think people coming from an environment as dire as you suggest would be delighted with the free, clean, and more importantly, safe, accomodation being offered during their assessment period.

    • hot tub political machine says:

      04:43pm | 13/05/11

      Markus, funny that innit? The way people who come from hell holes of trauma, conflict, genocide, government sanctioned “disappearance” of their relatives ect don’t act in a completely rational way.

    • MarK says:

      05:47pm | 13/05/11

      “Markus, funny that innit? The way people who come from hell holes of trauma, conflict, genocide, government sanctioned “disappearance” of their relatives ect don’t act in a completely rational way. “

      Especially after paying $20 grand a head…oh sorry it is discounted now so much cheaper such is the supply ...... to jump a queue (yes it is a queue, Labor says so) to go to their economic destination of choice.

      Consumerism in the displaced. What a thought.

    • Marilyn Shepherd says:

      06:24pm | 13/05/11

      Visas are not required and they never have been.  Do you know that a visa a stamp in a passport and the only thing it does is provide permission to enter.  As people need passports to get visas and as most refugees cannot get passports from governments out to kill them how would you suggest they get a visa.

      Honest to god, the dingbat comments people make would be funny if they were not so ridiculous.

      If we were invaded tomorrow 95% of Australians would not have the passports required to leave the country and fly off to safety so they would have to enter another country without a visa.

      Sheesh, there is no law anywhere in Australia that says people are committing an offence if they don’t have a visa.

      It’s just a frigging stamp.

    • St. Michael says:

      09:42pm | 13/05/11

      @ Markus: “You’d think people coming from an environment as dire as you suggest would be delighted with the free, clean, and more importantly, safe, accomodation being offered during their assessment period.”

      A golden cage is still a cage.  Ask anyone serving a 5 year prison sentence, again in accomodation that’s “free, clean, and more importantly, safe.”  At least prisoners know roughly how long they’re going to be there.  Try being only permitted to go around roughly a square kilometre of Earth for 18 months and see if you don’t go nuts in the interim, no matter how much Two and a Half Men you’re allowed to watch.

      Come to think of it, that might accelerate the process.

    • Marilyn Shepherd says:

      04:54am | 14/05/11

      Yeah right.  Except they can’t go home because they will die.

      The reality is that there is no way out of detention except a visa that people don’t even need.

    • The Badger says:

      10:39am | 13/05/11

      In West Australia, 3% of the population are identified as Aboriginal.
      As at 30 June 2010, 39% of all adult prisoners were Aboriginal, as were 66% of young people in detention.
      Looks like aboriginals are “committing much more crime.”
      Does this seem disproportionate to you? Why do you think this is Dogg?

      What would you propose doing to resolve this Carbon Dogg? Or are you just stirring the racist pot for your political masters?

    • Matt says:

      10:49am | 13/05/11

      Why do you think it is, The Badger? A conspiracy against Aboriginals perhaps?

    • The Badger says:

      10:57am | 13/05/11

      Do you have an opinion matt?
      Perhaps a solution?

    • St. Michael says:

      11:00am | 13/05/11

      @ The Badger: it’s not racism against Aboriginals, mate.  I’ve seen the Children’s Court and adult courts in action in WA—if you think the judges are in there saying “Yew err goin to prizun becuzz yer blek,” you’re sadly mistaken.  The rate of crime by Aboriginals is simply a lot higher.

      As I say above, a better analysis is to ask what the rate of alcoholism, sexual abuse, domestic violence, and single parenting is in the Aboriginal community versus the non-indigenous community.  You would probably find a stronger correlation for the crime rate there.

    • Sam says:

      11:01am | 13/05/11

      Badger,

      Please tell us what oppression or discrimination Aboriginal people face alone in this country that you could put forward as a reason for the disproportionate rate of imprisonment. 

      Are they statistically more likely to receive a harsher sentence for the same crime than non-indigenous people “Or are you just stirring the racist pot for your political masters?”

    • fairsfair says:

      11:14am | 13/05/11

      Badger there are various social and economical factors that relate to the incarceration rates of Indigenous Australians. Higher rates also apply to non-indigenous who are of similar circumstance. I don’t belive it is a “human rights issue” only relating to the Indigenous.

      I don’t think that Carbon Dogg was stirring any kind of racial pot. Cool yoru jets - you are always trying to spark a race fight, I don’t get it.

      What do you suggest to remedy the issue? Clearly it has to be addressed collectively (by all levels of govt and community members) at the community level. I live very close to an Aboriginal township (Yarrabah) and it has few issues with crime because its members make it work, but it is dependent on government funding and has no local economy. For want of a better word - it is a parasite settlement. Violent crime that occurs is almost always attributed to cultural (ie the two tribes that occupy the land). My hometown also houses Djarragun College - and indigenous only school. The school does not work all that well as there are issues with truency and crime. These are two examples of chosen segregation by the members of those communities - it has not at all been forced by “white man”.

      I question if this is the way to go however, as it seems to be stirring a completely different racial pot by a whole other set of “political masters”. I genuinely wonder your thoughts on that matter? Do you think it is OK for one group to choose to segregate themselves from the wider community? It clearly has its advantages in some situations, but not in all.

      I am not seeking to push your buttons Badge, you clearly have an interest in the social circumstances of Indigenous Australians, which is a good thing.

    • The Badger says:

      11:15am | 13/05/11

      I’m just putting it out there for you boys and girls,
      Now go talk amongst yourselves.

    • Matt says:

      11:24am | 13/05/11

      Do you have an opinion The Badger?
      Perhaps a solution?

    • Super D says:

      11:28am | 13/05/11

      I’d put it down to failed progressive education policies

    • Markus says:

      11:39am | 13/05/11

      “I’m just putting it out there for you boys and girls”
      i.e I’m just trolling, and have no actual opinion on the matter.

      Please just ignore him and his pathetic accusations of racism.

    • Greg says:

      11:45am | 13/05/11

      You’re the one with the spoon The Badger. You are the first person here to get all sensitive and stir the racist pot, and that might’ve helped you just answer your own question about how to resolve this issue

    • Ben81 says:

      02:32pm | 13/05/11

      Does this guy ever have anything of substance to say?

    • MarK says:

      05:44pm | 13/05/11

      No Ben.

      Just no.

      it had some potential when it first showed up but sadly it was all tip and no iceburg.

    • Ryan says:

      12:12pm | 13/05/11

      In my honest opinion, and having grown up in Africa I can say that I believe this to be a clash between Western and Tribal values. By part supplementing or giving handouts to traditional communities you effectively destroy the tribal values and the tribal system leaving behind some very disillusioned people with a lot of anger.
      In my honest opinion tribal communities should be left alone, no handouts, get on with living the way their values dictate, let their society deal with antisocial problems their way and we must treat that with the utmost respect instead of disrespecting them by trying to force our value system on them.
      Alternatively if someone from these tribal communities decides to accept western values then all western values should be taught and they should be treated 100% equally, no special treatment, how can you have self respect when you are being treated as a different class citizen through whatever differences that your fellow man is not subject to?

    • St. Michael says:

      12:38pm | 13/05/11

      On this one I tend to agree with you, although where one draws the line between “leave each other alone” and “apartheid” I don’t know.

      Although to some extent it’s almost unavoidable.  Across the entire planet, the uniform experience is the same: whenever a technologically advanced civilisation contacts a less advanced civilisation, the lesser civilisation is wiped out one way or another.

    • Brett says:

      02:10pm | 13/05/11

      I think there is value in investigating the removal of handouts. There are communities with 4th generation unemployment, something which most Australians find abhorent. There are voices within these communities (generally female voices) that plead for the removal of handouts, and the creation of opportunities for employment. However, it is often the lack of opportunities, whether real or pervieved, that leads to ongoing unemployment.

    • Bikinis On Top says:

      07:00pm | 13/05/11

      Your comment:let all 33 million refugees in the world to come to Australia.
      They could be new Australia.33 Million world refugees.!!
      The 22 million people already here could be Old Australia with their 4 major conservative parties Labor Greens Liberals and Nationals.

    • Bikinis on Top says:

      07:02pm | 13/05/11

      who cares about Amnesty International and what it says?
      Labor and Liberal national don’t care less!

    • bikinis on top says:

      07:04pm | 13/05/11

      human lefts are better than human rights.

    • the whisperer says:

      11:37pm | 13/05/11

      Erick talks of Amnesty International being overrun by Muslim sympathisers, ‘lefties’, misandry, and illegal immigration supporters. I’ve been a member of AI for a number of years, and I’ve never been made aware of any of the above. I would leave the organisation if what Erick says was true, so I am asking him to supply some evidence of his claim. Not just an opinion from Bill Smith in the ‘Letters to the Editor’ section of his local paper, but evidence.
      You can do that Erick, can’t you? Otherwise we will have to assume that you are simply going off at something you know nothing about in the hope that someone will be impressed by your superior, (?), knowledge.
      I have been reading these postings for a few weeks now, and I’ve come to the conclusion that you are close to being the most irrational, misguided, and ill-informed poster I have read. I’ll look forward to your response.

    • Harquebus says:

      11:27am | 14/05/11

      Only stupid people install that Flash rubbish.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

ToryShepherd

@Cmdr_Hadfield @mattpturner Hope you have sweet views while you heal

Lucy Kippist

RT @HeatherSmithAU: Can living in another country change your life for the better? by @lucyjk on @newscomau f. moi http://t.co/E5Ma3kBut2

David Penberthy

@mooks83 sophisticated response. Think the kids parents saw it differently

David Penberthy

More class from 9's footy show, lampooning a baby that allegedly looks like Sterlo with a pic swiped from Facebook http://t.co/BGoYP6Pn68

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter