The Age is having an extended tanty because a private citizen has dared to use the same publicly-available tools all political parties use, to say things that the mainstream media don’t want Australians to say.
A Brisbane man sent letters espousing offensive views about immigration and multiculturalism for years across Australia has defended the hate mail and said he had used electoral rolls to obtain recipients’ home addresses.
Note how the journalists are reporting their personal opinions as “news”? “Offensive” and “hate mail” are purely subjective opinions – yet, here they are, in the lede of a supposedly hard news report. A cardinal journalistic sin, I was taught at journalism school.
Besides offending their personal opinions, it’s hard to see a point behind The Age’s whinging here. It certainly doesn’t appear that the person has done anything at all illegal. No matter how often leftist journalists run crying to the cops.
Six years after a police investigation was dropped, police in Queensland are once again reviewing the letters, signed from J Church or G Church and sent in recent months to people in the arts, journalism, academia and politics[…]
In 2015, Queensland Police dropped an investigation into the letters, saying no offence had been identified.
So, what are the Age journalists really complaining about?
The recent letters say refugee, immigration and multicultural policies are “designed to get rid of white people via demographic manipulation” and “surrender Australia to foreign cultures and peoples”. The writer criticises “white politicians, journalists, lawyers, activists” who support these policies[…]
While the original letters investigated in 2015 mostly contained anti-Muslim content, the most recent letters from Mr Church oppose giving a voice to Indigenous Australians in Parliament, describing it as “racial gerrymandering”, “apartheid” and “smashing the national unity”.
So… not dissimilar opinions than you might hear in the local pub, or spoken at barbecues in ordinary Australian backyards.
But, of course, journalists know less about local pubs and suburban Australia than your average Amazonian tribesman does about quantum physics. So, naturally, they are shocked – shocked – to hear such “offensive” views.
As are their elite chums in the leafy suburbs.
Recipients have raised concerns about how their private home addresses were accessed. Several said they felt they had been targeted as they had spoken publicly about the issues raised in the letter[…]
In 2015, more than two dozen people said they had received the unwanted propaganda, including a top economist’s wife, former election candidates, community activists and even those with no public profile.
Like Pauline Kael, these fine, upstanding elitists have never actually met anyone who votes for the Coalition, let alone – gasp! – One Nation.
They’re even more disturbed that the oiks are learning to use the same, legal, publicly available tools that lefty activists and politicians have used for years.
“What unnerves me about this is that this person identifies particular people of interest through their online or media presentations and then accesses personal information,” the recipient said[…]
“I think it’s really odd [he] can track us, find our personal address and send information to our homes. I’m not worried about my safety but there is potentially a cyber breach happening somewhere where this person is able to access personal information. I think that’s a problem.”
But, after waving their hands and making scary noises about someone “identifying and tracking people”, what does The Age do?
The Age this week visited the return address in the Brisbane suburb of Coorparoo, which was listed on the back of envelopes sent in recent months.
The resident, Gregory John Church, confirmed he had been sending the letters.
Emphasis added.
So, The Age publishes the man’s full name and suburb of residence. That’s doxxing.
On the other hand, Church hasn’t done anything other than what political parties do – perfectly legally.
He said he had sourced them using the electoral roll but would not provide specifics. “Like I said I don’t want the place to be swamped with other people – and it’s totally legal,” he said.
“It’s the only way to get past the media blockade of all the issues. And, also, an open electoral roll is a requirement of a properly run democracy. People are free to return them and abuse me, I don’t mind”[…]
An Australian Electoral Commission spokesman said terminals in AEC offices provide public access to the electoral roll. However, a limitation imposed by the Electoral Act means the right to publicly inspect the roll does not include the right to copy or record by electronic means any part of the roll.
The Age
Who says Church has done the latter?
More to the point, why are private citizens not allowed the same privilege as political parties? “All candidates are entitled to copies of the electoral roll containing every voter’s name, age, address, occupation and whether they are a Justice of the Peace.”
It appears that the only thing Mr Church has done wrong is offend the right-on sensibilities of Age journalists and leftists – oops, that’s a tautology.
Journalists who are so offended at someone obtaining a person’s private information that they publish a person’s private information in revenge.
Please share this article so that others can discover The BFD