The sound track that got Mark Latham sacked. I may be the last to know, but I picked this up at Andrew Bolt where it is run under the heading MARK LATHAM VS ADAM GOODES: A STUDY IN HYPOCRISY. And if you go to the link, you can find the first of Mark Latham’s Outsiders which I will have to watch in full when I get home tonight.

And to this we can add Mark Latham’s own comment on my previous thread:

Thanks Steve,

Fascinating discussion. Let’s go to the background: on the Outsiders panel show on Sunday 12 March we ran through a series of zany things said on International Women’s Day the previous Wednesday. Five or six items. One of them was the Sydney Boys school prefect video, which had attracted significant media attention. The young men spoke the words of women in trying to help the feminist cause. The first speaker talked about having sex with a man. The video was designed to initially mislead, as only later did it become clear the speakers were quoting women.

I have spoken to scores of people who have said, upon first viewing of the video they thought the first speaker was speaking as a young gay man. That was my impression too. I made no value judgement about that, and never would. I simply thought it was a matter of fact. I don’t know why some people regard the word ‘gay’ as derogatory. I don’t. I was taught in the ALP in the 1980s to look through race, gender and sexuality as minor genetic/preference variations between people.

On the day before our show, the SMH ran a letter from the nearby Sydney Girls school students, attacking the ‘male video prefects’ as having no right to make a statement about feminism, saying they had a “toxic male culture” at their school.

On Outsiders we played the video to highlight that “men can’t win” – if you try to help with a well-intentioned (albeit strange and misleading) video, the feminists will bag you anyway.

Ross Cameron chipped in to say, words to the effect of, “These young fellas ought to be aware that the girls they are trying to impress will run off with a Western Sydney tradie in a ute.”

Very funny. In the laughter, I quipped, words to the effect of, “Well, I thought the first one was gay, so it won’t affect him”.

That’s all.

All I was saying was that the first speaker wouldn’t be impacted by Ross’s observation. There was no condemnation meant, nor should any have been taken. Indeed, that was the initial outcome.

The show would have had 30-40,000 viewers, including the ABC Media Watch, Buzzfeed, Fairfax etc gang who always watched, hoping to jump onto slip-ups. No one said a word about my comments until 17 days later, when other matters had arisen via ‘lawfare’. I still don’t know the reaction to all this from the first prefect speaker. Publicly, I have said if he’s upset at all by my words or by the controversy itself, then I apologise.

This is a feature of the Left’s confected outrage/PC industry: no problem at the time, but if they can delve back into history when a political target is vulnerable for other reasons, they will.

What happened to me was essentially a stitch up. None of the critics gave a crap about the school prefect. They had long been silent. It was all about closing down my (hopefully effective) critique of their ideology.

The mere mention of the word “gay” today is enough to have companies harassed and people sacked. The Left has turned it into a demon word, when I believe I have never used it that way.

True, I am a former Labor leader. I’m not a conservative, I’m a social democrat. And from that perspective, I oppose identity politics as a divisive, segregationist doctrine that weakens social trust and cohesiveness – the basic raw materials of community and the good society. You don’t have to be from the Right to oppose identity politics as an abomination. Peter Baldwin (ex senior minister and ALP Socialist left faction) has raised a critique similar to mine. You don’t have to be from the Right to oppose the extreme Left.

In summary, that’s what happened. If civility-conservatives think that’s fine, they might as well surrender the country and culture wars to the Identity Left right now. We should all go to the pub and have a Coopers instead.

They (and others) would be saying, in fact, no one can make an evidence-based quip about another person in the context of a very funny joke and very strange video.

In hindsight, I would have been better off joining the girls’ school in attacking the male prefects as toxic and calling for them to never speak about gender issues again.

Now ain’t that sad!!

Nikki Saava at her finest:

One of the most amusing, or disturbing, recent developments has been the embrace of former Labor leader Mark Latham by sections of the hard right as their new darling. Almost as amusing and disturbing as their embrace of Donald Trump.

As I recall, she also prefers Malcolm to Tony. Is there anyone on the editorial page of The Oz with worse judgement than her?

UPDATE: I am amazed by some of the comments who act as if we are discussing what Mark Latham said. So let me point out that the issue is what Sky News did. We do not have much artillery on our side of the line and if you want to think that it is quite all right for Janet to line up with those who have effectively shut Mark Latham’s commentary down, well fine and dandy. That’s why many of you also don’t get Donald Trump, who is also someone who fights these issues out. Sky News made a commercial decision but all that has been done is remove someone who was actually trying to explain things from what I would have thought is our point of view. No? OK, go watch Q&A instead.
______

An article by the snooty and condescending head prefect at The Oz titled: Mark Latham’s lack of basic decency. Another one of those pseduo-members of the right decides to become an arbiter of proper and improper free speech in defence of our values. The top ten eleven of the top comments with no omissions.

No problem with what you say Janet, just this: A tale of two insulters of children: one calls a child gay – supposedly a good thing – and gets fired for it; one gets a child subjected to the trauma of a two-hour police interrogation for uttering a single word, then humiliates her across the whole country, calling her the face of racism. The latter gets Australian of the Year – surely now an utterly worthless award. Of course, the fired one attacked the left, the exalted one praised it. Total abominable hypocrisy.

Screw your decency Janet. While you ponder on your precious decency the left continues to wage war a vicious war against men, whites, kids, Christianity and western values, all without shame or fear of reprisal. As far as I can see Latham is one of the few grunts in the trenches, doing the dirtiest of jobs , trying to defend our values and freedoms. If we’re going to rely on our decency we might as well raise the white flag now.

The blatant hypocrisy is what galls me Janet. The left, through State funded media, universities and other Government agencies and now our corporations routinely abuse and intimidate anyone and anything that do not agree with them. Not only do they abuse and falsely accuse and label people they savage them, discriminate, intimidate and do everything to destroy them. I’m totally with Latham on this. It’s time somebody with a platform and the spine and intellect stood up to this rabble of thugs.

Disagree Janet. ABC hurls subversive insults every day. Wendy Harmer is excruciating to listen to, obviously leftist and now living on the public purse. Lathams comments about her are antagonistic and inflammatory and possibly insulting, but so was the lefts relentless attacking of Abbott. The young man put himself in the public domaine, thus open to public criticism. You must admit, he was used as a pawn by feminists for IWD. Lathams sacking was a PR stunt by a board acquiescing to political correctness and his comments were re broadcast by those who like to take offence on behalf of others. I’m deeply offended by the ignorance and bias and insults of the ABC, can we sack all them too?

Yet it is OK for the likes of Wendy Harmer to say worse about conservative targets in her so called comedy routine.

May I toss a rotten egg into Janet’s one woman’s Animal Rescue dog’s dinner? It isn’t all beer and skittles in the State of Denmark. The ABC has been getting away with its sneering, devious, relentless campaign in promoting its own agenda for decades. The “Four Corners” stitching up of Pauline Hanson the other night was a typical example of how this blatant propaganda outfit can abuse with our money by sticking to the “rules”. What a breath of fresh air it was to listen to the “Outsiders” team call this mob out for what they really are. Mark Latham doesn’t mince his words and unlike all the other “decent” and gutless politicians – given the power – I’m sure some-one like Latham would soon bring the ABC into line. I have listened to Mark Latham now for many months on SKY and he comes across as the typical honest Aussie you would meet in the street or pub. He is not a 2 week foul mouthed wonder. Most of the time Mark Latham succinctly puts into words want his viewers are thinking. If he has a “sin”, it is from time to time, like a rugby league player he occasionally throws a punch instead of keeping to the rules. Surely like the talented rugby league stars we watch on SKY, he needs to be sin binned – not given a life sentence.

Mark Latham is one of the most incisive and perceptive political commentators in Australia. Unfortunately in his zeal for the cause he sometimes overstepped the mark. There are others, of course, who are shrinking violets, not game to say anything controversial out of fear that they may upset one of the plethora of ‘identities” who are constantly on the prowl looking for some imagined offence. Mark Latham had the courage to ‘call a spade, a spade’, something that is sadly lacking in so many of the politically correct, left wing journalists who comprise the ‘establishment’ of modern journalism. Many such presenters and journalists abound at Sky News, David Speers, Laura Jays, Kristina Keneally and of course PVO, who would bore you to sleep in five minutes flat, if you had the misfortune of being compelled to listen or watch him. It is apparent that they have taken much delight in bringing down one of their more courageous and outspoken colleagues. The sacking of Mark Latham is a very big blow to the standing of Sky News and further entrenches the power of the ruling, left wing elitists there, such as the aforementioned.

I understand your argument and support the need for decency in debate and argument. But gee I admire Latham’s intellect, ability to identify the weaknesses in PC arguments and cut to the quick. How would he react if his wife or son was abused? Well, it would not be by running off to some government bureaucracy. He would stand his ground and give back ten times. A person prepared to back themselves like he does, on stage in the midst of the hateful luvvies, is worthy of support.

Janet I must take issue with your comment today. As a profuse listener to radio and television I must say I have never heard Mark Latham make any remark that was not totally and completely the truth. You mention Wendy Harmer, I took Marks reference to refer to Wendy’s low acts of attacks on others in her public appearances. As for the young man that Mark referred to, Mark asked was he Gay, and unless a person thought that to be Gay was something to be ashamed of, I cannot see a problem. Alan Jones said it all on his Jones&Co Show last night.

I usually find Janet’s articles stimulating and perceptive. This time, however, while criticising the left for denying freedom of speech, she does the very same thing herself in her last paragraph. Surely Janet appreciates that the concept of decency is subjective. I found nothing indecent in Latham’s comments. Her argument is invalid.

So the right fight with one arm behind their back while the lunatic left run rampant. Get real Janet