Alan Jones does what MOST Conservatives never do ....

Full marks to the Daily Telegraph for allowing the right of reply to a Conservative Commentator.



An apology tempered by anger

Alan Jones 
The Daily Telegraph
October 01, 2012 12:00AM

WHEN I repeated last Saturday week, at a private dinner of the Sydney University Liberal Club, a comment I had heard only hours before at a birthday party for one of my godsons, as I said yesterday, I was wrong.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard was entitled to an apology, which I publicly offered and repeated yesterday.

My attempts to deliver it personally to her were in vain.

She declined to take my call.

The comments which should not be repeated here were in bad taste.

But party talk of the prime minister's untruths is a measure of real anger out there about Gillard's persistent and unapologetic breach of public trust.

On top of the carbon tax and asylum seeker broken promises, the taxpayer now sees ballooning debt.

And after endlessly talking about the necessity of a floor price for carbon dioxide emissions, come 2015, suddenly everything said in the past means nothing.

The consequences for revenue of this latest about face are mammoth.

The compensation package to taxpayers will remain as if the carbon dioxide price were $29 a tonne.

But the revenue will be based on a price set in Brussels, perhaps as low as $8 a tonne.

It doesn't add up.

But to the Gillard government, it doesn't seem to matter. You see, even the term carbon pollution reduction scheme is an untruth.

It's CO2 that is being taxed not carbon.

And CO2 is not a pollutant.

These are some of the issues I addressed at the dinner last Saturday week in a private room at the Waterfront Restaurant in Sydney, in a 58-minute speech I delivered without notes.

It was a typically under-graduate evening.

Everyone, as we say in Aussie lingo, copped a serve.

The jokes and the songs were all, understandably, about a Labor government which has not only dishonoured promises on so many issues, but also has stood democracy on its head by telling the voting public what it believes is good for them.

I rose to speak at 10.10pm in this atmosphere.

Wrongly, I repeated the offending remarks.

And there could be no justification for that.

That said, there are other issues at work here.

A person, apparently a journalist, represented himself to the organisers as a Liberal student and paid the Liberal student entry fee, but he's not a student.

He registered for the evening with an email address which concealed the fact that he was a journalist.

And without notifying or seeking approval from the organisers or the speakers, he apparently taped the speech.

Where the Listening Devices Act fits in relation to such behaviour is interesting.

But if people at private dinner parties have to wonder whether someone is secretly taping proceedings for reproduction to any media outlet that wants them, then it seems that no one is safe on a Saturday night from details of the evening being later revealed.

That does not mean that comments made privately or publicly should be such as to give offence to another, should those comments be made public. But I wonder if such reporting behaviour occurred at a Labor Party dinner, what the response might have been.

What is more, only last week, the wife of a federal government minister tweeted to the extent that Alan Jones won't have to be endured for much longer as the average age that males live to in Australia is such that he won't be with us for long.

Or words to that effect.

Nice stuff.

And the social media yesterday were wishing my cancers to return, except this time, the hope was expressed that they should finish the job.

I'm not complaining and I'm not suggesting anyone should run to my defence.

What I am suggesting is that some seem to practise the standards they selectively condemn.

As I soon as I learnt my comments would have made their way to the Prime Minister, I determined I must apologise. And I say again, I sought neither to reflect on Mr John Gillard, the Prime Minister's father, nor to dismiss the grief that any daughter feels for the death of her father.

I said yesterday that I have nothing but praise for the John Gillards of this world.

Mr Gillard is an emblem of all migrant fathers who came here to give their families a better life.

I will stand anywhere to deliver a eulogy to John Gillard as a father and a worker and a man. And that applies to his wife. But I will never eulogise what Mr Gillard's daughter and her party are doing to our country.

The public know what is happening and they are angry.

And when they are lied to on grocery watch, fuel watch, carbon tax, asylum seekers, a carbon tax floor price and debt; to say nothing of four young men losing their lives in a pink batts fiasco these issues, amongst others, are the basis for that anger.

I addressed all these issues at the Liberal Club function.

I should never have included in my remarks the words rightly attributed to me.

But if only some of the trenchant criticism directed towards me is inspired by a ruthless determination to silence legitimate comment and condemnation of government policy, then just as comments which strike at the grief of a daughter for her father should be condemned, so too should be condemned the widespread efforts by the Gillard government, and Julia Gillard herself, to silence or punish anyone who dares to articulate one political certainty that this may be the worst and least trustworthy government in Australian history.

Alan Jones Replies at last a conservative defends himself

At last a Conservative takes the time to Defend themselves

However in my opinion Gillard is everything and more Jones has accused her of been.
Her Father would have died with a smile on his face knowing that JulIAR was implementing their shared Socialist agenda upon their adopted Country, Australia in the true cloth cap class war that Wales is INfamous for.
Go back to the Fucking Coal Mine ya Socialist Pricks nothing to see here in Australia.
Jones has nothing to apologise for apart from holding back.

The MSM need to dispose of Jones, for once they have done so,.
 the MSM will have an unchallanged monopoly on their Socialist agenda



An apology tempered by anger

Alan Jones 
The Daily Telegraph
 October 01, 2012 12:00AM

WHEN I repeated last Saturday week, at a private dinner of the Sydney University Liberal Club, a comment I had heard only hours before at a birthday party for one of my godsons, as I said yesterday, I was wrong.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard was entitled to an apology, which I publicly offered and repeated yesterday.

My attempts to deliver it personally to her were in vain.

She declined to take my call.

The comments which should not be repeated here were in bad taste.

But party talk of the prime minister's untruths is a measure of real anger out there about Gillard's persistent and unapologetic breach of public trust.

On top of the carbon tax and asylum seeker broken promises, the taxpayer now sees ballooning debt.

And after endlessly talking about the necessity of a floor price for carbon dioxide emissions, come 2015, suddenly everything said in the past means nothing.

The consequences for revenue of this latest about face are mammoth.

The compensation package to taxpayers will remain as if the carbon dioxide price were $29 a tonne.

But the revenue will be based on a price set in Brussels, perhaps as low as $8 a tonne.

It doesn't add up.

But to the Gillard government, it doesn't seem to matter. You see, even the term carbon pollution reduction scheme is an untruth.

It's CO2 that is being taxed not carbon.

And CO2 is not a pollutant.

These are some of the issues I addressed at the dinner last Saturday week in a private room at the Waterfront Restaurant in Sydney, in a 

58-minute speech I delivered without notes.

It was a typically under-graduate evening.

Everyone, as we say in Aussie lingo, copped a serve.

The jokes and the songs were all, understandably, about a Labor government which has not only dishonoured promises on so many issues, but also has stood democracy on its head by telling the voting public what it believes is good for them.

I rose to speak at 10.10pm in this atmosphere.

Wrongly, I repeated the offending remarks.

And there could be no justification for that.

That said, there are other issues at work here.

A person, apparently a journalist, represented himself to the organisers as a Liberal student and paid the Liberal student entry fee, but he's not a student.

He registered for the evening with an email address which concealed the fact that he was a journalist.

And without notifying or seeking approval from the organisers or the speakers, he apparently taped the speech.

Where the Listening Devices Act fits in relation to such behaviour is interesting.

But if people at private dinner parties have to wonder whether someone is secretly taping proceedings for reproduction to any media outlet that 

wants them, then it seems that no one is safe on a Saturday night from details of the evening being later revealed.

That does not mean that comments made privately or publicly should be such as to give offence to another, should those comments be made public. But I wonder if such reporting behaviour occurred at a Labor Party dinner, what the response might have been.

What is more, only last week, the wife of a federal government minister tweeted to the extent that Alan Jones won't have to be endured for much longer as the average age that males live to in Australia is such that he won't be with us for long.

Or words to that effect.

Nice stuff.

And the social media yesterday were wishing my cancers to return, except this time, the hope was expressed that they should finish the job.

I'm not complaining and I'm not suggesting anyone should run to my defence.

What I am suggesting is that some seem to practise the standards they selectively condemn.

As I soon as I learnt my comments would have made their way to the Prime Minister, I determined I must apologise. And I say again, I sought neither to reflect on Mr John Gillard, the Prime Minister's father, nor to dismiss the grief that any daughter feels for the death of her father.

I said yesterday that I have nothing but praise for the John Gillards of this world.

Mr Gillard is an emblem of all migrant fathers who came here to give their families a better life.

I will stand anywhere to deliver a eulogy to John Gillard as a father and a worker and a man. And that applies to his wife. But I will never eulogise 

what Mr Gillard's daughter and her party are doing to our country.

The public know what is happening and they are angry.

And when they are lied to on grocery watch, fuel watch, carbon tax, asylum seekers, a carbon tax floor price and debt; to say nothing of four young men losing their lives in a pink batts fiasco these issues, amongst others, are the basis for that anger.

I addressed all these issues at the Liberal Club function.

I should never have included in my remarks the words rightly attributed to me.

But if only some of the trenchant criticism directed towards me is inspired by a ruthless determination to silence legitimate comment and condemnation of government policy, then just as comments which strike at the grief of a daughter for her father should be condemned, so too should be condemned the widespread efforts by the Gillard government, and Julia Gillard herself, to silence or punish anyone who dares to 
articulate one political certainty that this may be the worst and least trustworthy government in Australian history.

Islam means Peace and slitting your daughters throat proves it....... but hey all cultures Religions are equal right? Oh so you are a racist bigot ?

Unashamedly copy and pasted from Jihad Watch  ....  

Canada: "Then I stab her, stab her neck. She said, 'No Mom!' I said, 'It's for your good. Let me finish.'"

Attempted honor murder in Montreal.

Muslims commit 91 percent of honor killings worldwide. A manual of Islamic law certified as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy by Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, says that "retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right." However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Saliko1.1-2). In other words, someone who kills his child incurs no legal penalty under Islamic law.

The Palestinian Authority gives pardons or suspended sentences for honor murders. Iraqi women have asked for tougher sentences for Islamic honor murderers, who get off lightly now. Syria in 2009 scrapped a law limiting the length of sentences for honor killings, but "the new law says a man can still benefit from extenuating circumstances in crimes of passion or honour 'provided he serves a prison term of no less than two years in the case of killing.'" And in 2003 the Jordanian Parliament voted down on Islamic grounds a provision designed to stiffen penalties for honor killings. Al-Jazeera reported that "Islamists and conservatives said the laws violated religious traditions and would destroy families and values."

In light of all this, until authorities get the courage to tell the truth about honor killing, there will be many more such murders.

"‘It’s for your good. Let me finish’: Afghan-Canadian mother told police she stabbed her daughter with a kitchen knife," by Graeme Hamilton for the National Post, September 26 (thanks to Michael):

MONTREAL – For months, Bahar Ebrahimi had been rebelling against her parents, complaining their Afghan culture and Muslim religion were suffocating her. “I want to enjoy my life. I want to feel what the other ones feel,” she told them, according to her mother’s statement to police.

It was June, 2010, Grand Prix weekend in downtown Montreal, and on two straight nights the 19-year-old stayed out past dawn against her parents’ wishes.

For her mother, Johra Kaleki, the behaviour confirmed that all her efforts to steer her eldest daughter on the right path had failed. “I felt like she would never be fixed,” she told Sgt.-Det. Alexandre Bertrand in an interrogation video played Wednesday in Quebec Court.

As her crying husband spoke to Bahar in the basement of their Dorval home, Ms. Kaleki went upstairs and grabbed a large knife from the kitchen counter, the one she used to chop meat, she recounted. “I said, ‘This is the time.’ ”

She hid the knife under her T-shirt, returned to the basement, and told her husband the problem would best be resolved between mother and daughter. “Just leave us alone for five minutes,” she said she told him. “Don’t come until I call you.”

He left and she cuddled her first-born and told her to lie on her stomach so she could give her a back massage. “Then I stab her, stab her neck,” she confessed. “She said, ‘No Mom!’ I said, ‘It’s for your good. Let me finish.’ ”
Earlier in the interrogation, Sgt.-Det. Bertrand has asked whether the knife blade was sharp. “No, it wasn’t,” she replied. “I wish it was. I wanted to give her the peace that she needed.”

Bahar survived the attack, suffering serious knife wounds to her head and shoulder. Ms. Kaleki, 40, is charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault and illegal use of a weapon.

Her husband, alerted by Bahar’s screams, rushed downstairs and grabbed the knife from Ms. Kaleki, the court heard. “I said to my husband, let me finish her.’ ” She tried to choke her daughter, she said, and after Bahar escaped, she chased her upstairs and tried to break down the locked door to the bedroom where she was calling 911.

She was arrested, and after being treated in hospital for a knife wound on her own arm, she told her story to Sgt.-Det. Bertrand.

The first night Bahar stayed out late, informing her parents she was downtown enjoying a concert, they went to the local police station to file a report, Ms. Kaleki said. The officer told them there was nothing that could be done. “He said, ‘She’s safe. Don’t worry. She’s a teenager.’ ”

But the idea of a rebellious teenage girl was foreign to her parents. They expected Bahar to be home by 11 p.m. and not to smoke, drink or have boyfriends.

After the second night, when Bahar said she had spent much of the evening walking along St. Laurent Blvd., Ms. Kaleki was horrified. “I asked her, ‘Are you a prostitute? Are you a whore?’ ” she said.

A few months earlier, when Ms. Kaleki discovered Bahar was being harassed by an ex-boyfriend, she blamed her daughter. After speaking to the boy once on the phone, Ms. Kaleki decided he sounded like “a very good Muslim guy” and told Bahar he would make a good husband. “Probably you’ve done something to drive him crazy,” she told her. “I know you. You’re my daughter.” Bahar refused the idea of marriage, calling the boy a “psycho.”

Toward the end of the four-hour interview, the detective asked Ms. Kaleki whether she had anything to add. “I hope she gets well,” she said referring to her daughter. But she did not want her to emerge unscarred.

“She live with that wound,” she continued, pointing to her neck, “she remembers me.” The experience “will make her strong and give her wisdom. . . . It means she will give up her ways of living.”...

Alan Jones Greg Sheridan