| Revision as of 06:13, 8 August 2004 editVanished user 5zariu3jisj0j4irj (talk | contribs)36,325 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:58, 9 August 2004 edit undoHerschelkrustofsky (talk | contribs)2,877 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
| :If it's the law you're disputing, take it somewhere else. For what it matters, I was against it. But the bill had bipartisan support, and many people spoke in support of it. The bill was controversial, but Danby's support of it wasn't controversial on its own. ] 06:13, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC) | :If it's the law you're disputing, take it somewhere else. For what it matters, I was against it. But the bill had bipartisan support, and many people spoke in support of it. The bill was controversial, but Danby's support of it wasn't controversial on its own. ] 06:13, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC) | ||
| ==Danby's philosophical roots== | |||
| I am the one who posted the comment about Danby and the Anti-Terrorism Act, over at ]. Since Adam evidently wishes to debate the point, consider this: | |||
| ''Jabotinsky has his sympathisers in Australia. The ''Australia-Israel Review'', for example (which now styles itself "The Review"), was founded by a fanatical Revisionist (as the followers of Jabotinsky were called), Robert Zablud. Former longtime ''AIR'' editor Michael Danby eulogised Zablud, whom he called the "organisational genius" behind the ''AIR'', in the 19 September-2 October 1989 ''AIR'', noting that Zablud's vision of Judaism was inspired by "his mentor Zeev Jabotinsky", whom Danby called "a much misunderstood centre-right Zionist ideologue".'' | |||
| Who was Jabotinsky? He was the man whom Israeli founding father David Ben-Gurion called "Vladimir Hitler." Ben-Gurion, who had a humanist conception of Zionism based on the greatest and most inspiring traditions of European culture (he learned Spanish so that he might read ''Don Quixote'' in the original), fought Jabotinsky at every turn. | |||
| Jabotinsky and the Revisionists aped the militaristic garb and organizational structure of Mussolini's movement, and attempted to ward off criticism of Mussolini within the Jewish community: | |||
| "Jabotinsky became Mussolini’s defence attorney within the Jewish world. While he was visiting America in 1935 on a lecture tour he wrote a series of articles for New York’s Jewish Daily Bulletin, a short-lived English-language Zionist paper devoted exclusively to Jewish affairs. In the 1930s, most Jews followed the common usage and referred to the fight against Hitler as part of the “anti-Fascist struggle”; Jabotinsky was determined to put a stop to that, since he understood too well that as long as the Jews saw Hitler as another Fascist, they would never approve of the Revisionist orientation towards Mussolini." | |||
| The admiration was reciprocated: Mussolini, in 1935, told David Prato, later to become chief rabbi of Rome, that: “For Zionism to succeed you need to have a Jewish state, with a Jewish flag and a Jewish language. The person who really understands that is your fascist, Jabotinsky.” --Bar-Zohar, ''Ben-Gurion – The Armed Prophet'', p.46. | |||
| That should provide something to discuss on this page. --] 02:58, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:58, 9 August 2004
Anonymous persons cannot add "neutrality" tags to articles without explanation. I am removing the tag until an explanation is given. (Declaration of interest: Danby is my employer). Adam 15:06, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Over at the debate on "Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive4", someone says that Danby is not only your employer, but also: "He is an ardent supporter of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2004, which legalizes--under Australian law--the institutions and procedures as specified in an Executive Order by President Bush, which set up the torture regimes at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. The act cites the relevant Executive Order by Bush by name, and also cites by name the lawless military detention system at Guantanamo Bay, to which that order gave rise. Danby officially spoke in Parliament for the (nominally) opposition Labor Party on behalf of this bill, which was put forward by the neo-con government of Liberal Party Prime Minister John Howard." True or false? Don't you think this ought to be covered by the article?
I don't dignify LaRouchite slanders with a response. Adam 04:07, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
A slander is by nature false, yes? So are you saying that Danby did not advocate the Anti-Terrorism Act?
Nor do I resond to questions from anonymous people. Adam 17:45, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I am no longer anonymous: I have a Misplaced Pages logon now. Go ahead and explain to me whether the information on Danby's role in the Anti-Terrorism Act is incorrect. Also, explain why you, as an employee of Danby, should not be seen as promoting or electioneering for him, by attempting to present a non-critical Misplaced Pages article. I would suggest you let someone edit it who has no personal stake. --Weed Harper 00:28, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
In response:
- The bill in question was a government bill which was passed with bipartisan support. It was opposed by (from memory) one Independent member in the House and about 10 minor party Senators. If this comment is to be made about Danby, it must also be made about all 149 MPs and 60-odd Senators who voted for it.
- It is not true that Danby personally has been criticised for voting for the bill, except in the sense that the far left (and LaRouchites) have criticised everyone who voted for it. Danby is being singled out for criticism by this LaRoucheite editor solely because he is Jewish.
- The bill was in any case a perfectly reasonable response to the threat of terrorism in Australia (following the Bali bombing), which can in no sense be described as "fascist" as the LaRoucheites pretend. That is why, after due parliamentary scrutiny, it was given bipartisan support.
- Yes I have a difficulty editing this article when Danby is both my employer and a personal friend. But the Danby article I wrote is exactly the same as the ones I wrote for all other backbench MPs, other than to note that he is the only Jewish MP. I have not added any material favourable to him. All I have done is remove LaRouche propaganda from the article. It probably would be better if someone else removed it, but whether it is removed by me or by someone else, it will continue to be removed. Adam 01:10, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The article has now been protected. This is ridiculous. How strange that Adam's employer (and the only Jewish MP) is the one to be singled out for this - and right after the Lyndon LaRouche dispute, no less. Ambi 03:50, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Weed Harper made the request for protection. AndyL 04:44, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Danby singled himself out, by his particularly enthusiastic support for the bill. I wouldn't have know he was Jewish, if Adam hadn't mentioned it as often as possible -- Adam can't seem to respond to a disagreement without mudslinging. Everyone who challenges him turns into a far leftist, a LaRouchite, and an anti-Semite. In fact, the bill was opposed by civil libertarians of all kinds.
Adam says that the bill was perfectly reasonable. Now, help me out here -- the argument that it is perfectly reasonable to suspend civil liberties to protect us against terrorism -- doesn't that sound awfully familiar? Haven't we heard that one somewhere before? --Weed Harper 06:05, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- If it's the law you're disputing, take it somewhere else. For what it matters, I was against it. But the bill had bipartisan support, and many people spoke in support of it. The bill was controversial, but Danby's support of it wasn't controversial on its own. Ambi 06:13, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Danby's philosophical roots
I am the one who posted the comment about Danby and the Anti-Terrorism Act, over at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive4. Since Adam evidently wishes to debate the point, consider this:
Jabotinsky has his sympathisers in Australia. The Australia-Israel Review, for example (which now styles itself "The Review"), was founded by a fanatical Revisionist (as the followers of Jabotinsky were called), Robert Zablud. Former longtime AIR editor Michael Danby eulogised Zablud, whom he called the "organisational genius" behind the AIR, in the 19 September-2 October 1989 AIR, noting that Zablud's vision of Judaism was inspired by "his mentor Zeev Jabotinsky", whom Danby called "a much misunderstood centre-right Zionist ideologue".
Who was Jabotinsky? He was the man whom Israeli founding father David Ben-Gurion called "Vladimir Hitler." Ben-Gurion, who had a humanist conception of Zionism based on the greatest and most inspiring traditions of European culture (he learned Spanish so that he might read Don Quixote in the original), fought Jabotinsky at every turn.
Jabotinsky and the Revisionists aped the militaristic garb and organizational structure of Mussolini's movement, and attempted to ward off criticism of Mussolini within the Jewish community:
"Jabotinsky became Mussolini’s defence attorney within the Jewish world. While he was visiting America in 1935 on a lecture tour he wrote a series of articles for New York’s Jewish Daily Bulletin, a short-lived English-language Zionist paper devoted exclusively to Jewish affairs. In the 1930s, most Jews followed the common usage and referred to the fight against Hitler as part of the “anti-Fascist struggle”; Jabotinsky was determined to put a stop to that, since he understood too well that as long as the Jews saw Hitler as another Fascist, they would never approve of the Revisionist orientation towards Mussolini."
The admiration was reciprocated: Mussolini, in 1935, told David Prato, later to become chief rabbi of Rome, that: “For Zionism to succeed you need to have a Jewish state, with a Jewish flag and a Jewish language. The person who really understands that is your fascist, Jabotinsky.” --Bar-Zohar, Ben-Gurion – The Armed Prophet, p.46.
That should provide something to discuss on this page. --Herschelkrustofsky 02:58, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)