Wall St was down 94 overnight, its biggest fall in a month, while the local market is down 66.
Did Miranda Devine incite violence?
|
Incitement is a crime in every state and territory of Australia. The courts take a dim view of people who encourage others to commit criminal offences and they particularly don’t like individuals taking actions which incite others to commit violence. To incite the law says, is to “command”, “request”, “authorize”, “propose”, “advise” or “encourage”. And the person doing the inciting either intends that his or her statements constituting the incitement will be acted upon or they are recklessly indifferent as to whether it occurred or not. These fraught times, where there is a smell of blood in the air as well as smoke, as communities, individuals and the media look to find someone to blame for the Victorian bushfires, are just the environment where incitement flourishes. Take The Sydney Morning Herald’s columnist Miranda Devine. Ms Devine’s column last Saturday is worthy of examination in this context. Here’s what she said:
Now Ms Devine will no doubt argue that she did not mean her offensive remark to be taken literally. However, while context and the circumstances in which the words of incitement are used are important in considering if someone has committed an offence, it is arguable that given Devine’s prominence in the community, the fact that The Sydney Morning Herald highlighted her remarks by giving her column space on the front page of the newspaper, and that she did not clarify her remarks with a statement such as — of course I am not urging anyone to commit violence against a “greenie” — means that the police should examine the statement closely to see if it constitutes incitement. But Ms Devine is not alone when it comes to appearing to condone violence. News reporters, such as Channel Seven’s Chris Reason, who on the weekend interviewed individuals who gave chapter and verse on acts of violence they want to commit on Brendan Sokaluk, the man charged in relation to the Churchill fires, might also be said to be inciting violence. And the many hundreds of people who are busily using the socially irresponsible Facebook and other Internet sites to urge violence and revenge on Mr Sokaluk should also have their remarks examined closely by police to see if they too are encouraging or urging acts of violence. To date no one appears to have acted on the inflammatory statements of Ms Devine and her fellow sabre rattlers, but that does not matter, says the law. It is enough that the incitement to commit a offence occurs, it is irrelevant that no one acted on the statement made. Incitement to violence is a serious matter, because the potential consequences of it can be death and serious harm. That is why the police and prosecuting authorities should pay as much attention to detecting it and laying charges if the evidence supports it. And media organizations and website owners must be put on notice that they and their staff will be prosecuted if they assist in the incitement by publishing inflammatory material. |
|
|
27 Comments
Interesting.
The following is the exact wording of a bit of the 2005 Anti-Terrorism Bill section 80.2 (remember the controversial sedition laws)
“Urging violence within the community
A person commits an offence if:
the person urges a group or groups (whether distinguished by race, religion, nationality or political opinion) to use force or violence against another group or other groups (as so distinguished); and the use of the force or violence would threaten the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 7 years.”
FROM: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/LAW/sedition.htm
Spot on CG - I had, until last week, successfully fulfilled my New Year’s resolution of no more Devine, Bolt, Ramsay etc. and life was good.
It’s about time Miranda was brought to account for her inflammatory language when she refers to her ideological opponents. She may be the darling if the neo-liberal media and well connected within the media, but that does not mean she has the right or should escape accountability for incitement not only to violence, but also hatred of any to the left of her on the political spectrum.
If nothing else you’ve now made sure that the Police will not investigate it. Nobody tells the Victorian Police what to do!
If on the other hand Devine made any criticism of the police force well of course they’d be all over her.
I don’t think anybody takes Devine seriously anyway, so there’s not really anything to worry about.
Yes Matthew, if only those buildings were brick and steel, none of this would have happened…Everyone’s an expert eh - including Miranda, but that’s nothing new.
Getting a bit carried away, Mr Barnes
While it may be difficult to make a criminal case out of it, the article represents an extremely poor choice of words and a lack of judgement by the editors in allowing it to be published. It is not Miranda Devine alone that has to bear responsibility, but the editors and publisher of the newspaper. At the very least the paper should publish an apology for the inappropriate language.
Greg, aren’t you just churning Media Watch from last night?
Miranda Devine is an idiot. She loves to be confronting, and she probably thinks she’s very ‘cute’ for getting away with this. At worst it was inciting, and mostly it showed a gross lack of sensitivity - so what’s new? Whether it’s abandoned babies or people losing their homes, and sadly too many lives, she doesn’t have a moral fibre in her body. Her editor should have refused to publish such insensitive garbage. She wouldn’t have a clue about the type of timber etc in this area, but she wouldn’t let some investigative journalism get in the way of her diatribe. We’ve probably given her what she wants - we’re wasting our time talking about her. If she’s committed the crime of inciting hatred, she should face the ultimate test - in court before her peers. I can only hope that ‘what goes around comes around’ and she gets hers! Insensitive, ignorant person that she is!
Inciting violence? Surely, you would have to prove intent to get the charges to stick (extremely unlikely). I also read the article by Miranda Devine and to me, it didn’t seem like Miranda was inciting the public to do much of anything; just to agree that she is right (as per normal)
I know Miranda isn’t every one’s cup of tea, but to say she was encouraging the lynching of “Greenies” is a pretty long bow to draw and a comment not worthy of Greg Barns’ byline.
Miranda’s a horrible, stupid cow, and thoroughly deserves at least a bloody vigorous slap on the wrist, but I very much doubt the whole case will hold water. How do we get it started though? Perhaps we could run a donation campaign to bring a court case against Miranda and Bolt for criminal stupidity or something similar.
I’m surprised you managed to continue to call her Ms Devine too. I resorted to insults in my first sentence.
It’s an open and shut case - she should be sacked and prosecuted. But the Herald hasn’t got the moral fibre or the guts. The opinion editor is Tim Dick. Fits right in with Paul Sheehan barracking apologia for the racist elements within the Israeli Defence Force while failing to declare a financial conflict of interest.
What exactly is the context here in Australia - well let me give a few examples well before the tragedy in Victoria, which by the way is the real context, namely 200-300 dead in confusing circumstances and many uneducated in the audience:
* Loggers convicted of criminal assault on the NSW South Coast recently near Cobargo. These same grubs kindly told me if I came back to Wandella area ‘You won’t get out alive’. Nice to hear in a remote forest.
* Video footage of loggers smashing car windows and lights in, while greenies cowered inside - all so they could make private profit from the public’s heritage.
* federal minister in the Howard Govt McDonald calling for loggers to ‘bbq a greenie’ again on the NSW South Coast - forced to retract in federal parliament.
* Picture taken by this writer of a seasonal bushfire fighter visiting a conservationist camp then having rocks thrown at him by carload of loggers, with red weeping bruise above his eye.
* Back to 1993 - logger menacing a green protester with a log loader claw.
* James Woodford told me once how they smashed his car window in while scouting SE NSW forests …..for the SMH.
Just my list, there would be heaps more from others in the green sector. What city folks fed the logging industry bullsh*t don’t really understand is that the business of this industry is death. Take the Eden area - first killing whales, then killing koalas for fur, then killing wild wet old growth forests and the wildlife in them.
The great irony is she got it exactly wrong: The firestorm monstered up on state forest logging tenure after decades of rainforest and wet old growth conversion to dry sclerophyll.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again in response to about half of Greg Barns’ articles: technically obsessive lawyers make wonderful arguements which are frequently devoid of anything resembling common sense. I always enjoy your work, Greg, but I hope you appreciate that whenever you’re wearing your lawyer hat you are well on your way to coming up with an idea which is nonsensical. Yesterday’s article was excellent, this one draws a very long bow. Still, as all lawyers know, when the facts are against you argue the law and when the law is against you argue the facts. We all know Miranda is a fool but that’s no crime.
We now need leadership (and less speculation) on this issue. Our (Victoria’s) state of knowledge of the potential and real impacts of fire have changed dramatically in the past fortnight. As I look at my untouched property, and the ruins of my neighbours houses not far away, it is obvious that the inevitable blame game adds little value. Let’s work together to improve our defences using our new “state of knowledge”. We can only achieve that through good leadership (and the proper use of hindsight) during the investigation and rebuilding process.
Does anyone really care what Ms Devine thinks (apart from herself)?
Does anyone remember the MIss Devine of old?
Yes but inciting mob vengence on a few greenies and arsonists provides a really useful media diversion from more pertinent questions like why Victorian state building codes apparently pemitted people to build timber tinder boxes in the most bushfire prone parts of Australia…..
caller to 774 Faine’s program this morning said a TV channel rang people at one fire-affected town, asking if they wanted to put pressure on police to catch who lit the fires. A group of people assembled. The cameras showed up. The TV channel broadcast people saying they wanted to catch this person and string them up, or words to that effect. The TV channel created the little drama for its own ends. Disgraceful
Mark P is right - Media Watch definately deserved an acknowledgement . In this case I don’t think the fault lies so much with Miranda. As one of our media’s high profile polemicists her “opinion” is quite predictable. Presumably though the editors and corporate masters of Fairfax (and Seven with regard to Chris Reasons effort) have some responsibility to watch for, identify and at least tone down, if not remove, such hate mongering language. It was unnecessary, sensationalist pap, and sadly as no doubt intended it has us all talking.
I’m astounded that anyone could make excuses for Ms Devine’s coments. I’d like to see how far someone got yelling “fire!” in a theatre and then claiming they were only speaking “metaphorically”.
It’s an example of how the media has come to believe it’s a law unto itself (as well as an example of the decline in Fairfax standards). Writing an opinion piece is just that-it’s either Devine’s opinion or it isn’t. So does she mean “Greenies should be lynched” or doesn’t she ?. Either way she is wrong. She is either inciting violence or spouting rubbish she doesn’t believe in. Being a newspaper scribe doesn’t absolve Devine from laws that apply to others.
But there are others to blame for the appaling lynch mentality orgy that the media has indulged in over the past week-the police.They simply love feeding stuff to their favourites in the media who they know will faithfully print prejudical stories about an accused. It’s backfired badly. Now the police ar back-pedalling at a rate of a million miles an hour.
On this subject of police walking hand in hand with the media-where do newspapers stand with their lurid tales of a 13 year old dad in the UK with tales of underage sex ?. I thought it was an offence to even posess stories of underage sex….another question for our intrepid Communication’s Minister and the self appointed “child advocates” who advise him.
Head’s should roll in both the media and the police force.
I agree with Naomi, the Media Watch comment, this article and the following comments are exactly what Miranda Devine wants, to antagonise people who have a humanist sensitively that she so extremely lacks. The question that should be asked is why do Fairfax continue to publish her inciteful ‘opinions’? They have condoned her for so long she now appears to have no limits.
Devine incites me to violence on a fairly regular basis. Luckily, I have self-control (and no idea where she lives
What a beat up. Anyone without an ideological bent (and there aren’t many comments on this page that are devoid of that) could read that it was a metaphorical reference. Both the far left and far right in this country write some looney and wacky stuff. At least she published it as an opinion piece.
Oh and Ev, you are the ugly one. Take a look at yourself first.
This sounds like it is personal!
This is pure bullshit, I read Devine’s article. She was speaking metaphorically, as well you know.No one could take her literally, including you Greg.
Ive actually thought for some time that there’s not actually anyone named Miranda Devine. I suspect that Fairfax have a piece of simple software where the editor inputs three nouns and out pops an inconsistent, contradictory and barely intelligible right-wing polemic. No actual human is capable of so many consistently offensive opinions.
Seriously though. We all know that every article that she writes is going to be wrong in an intentionally provocative way. That’s what she wants. So just stop reading her. Gone are the days when we don’t have choice for opinion on public affairs. There’s much more sensible material elsewhere.
I wonder if Miranda will be so sanguine about the prospective lynching of those “”responsible” for the fires now that it seems the (privatised) electricity company may have failed to maintain the network in a safe condition? I guess that would be an ideological bridge too far. Interesting though that in this case it looks like another instance of privatising the profits and socialising the losses if the Victorian Labor government has to cough up for damages under the deal done by the Kennet Liberal government, if any legal class action is sucessful against the power company.
In the Australian context it is probably excessively literal to say that Devine’s blather is an incitement to violence. If this was, say, Rwanda then it it would be a different story. That her writings are, however, an incitement to stupidity is beyond doubt.