The only people who might be offended by this are actual Nazis

Our freedoms are disappearing before our eyes and an authoritarian state is taking its place. Man faces hate crime charge in Scotland over dog’s ‘Nazi salute’. The full story:

A man has been arrested over an online video that reportedly shows a dog making a Nazi salute.

The 28-year-old, from Coatbridge in North Lanarkshire, faces hate crime charges over the video, Police Scotland said.

The clip allegedly shows a pug sitting in front of a screen showing footage of Adolf Hitler and appearing to make Nazi salutes.

Officers said the video had been shared online and “caused offence and hurt to many people in our community”.

A Police Scotland spokeswoman said: “A 28-year-old man was arrested on Thursday 28 April in relation to the alleged publication of offensive material online (improper use of electronic communications under the Communications Act 2003).

“A report has been submitted to the procurator fiscal.”

DI David Cockburn said: “Posting offensive material online or in any other capacity will not be tolerated and police will act swiftly to tackle hate crimes that are motivated by malice or ill-will because of faith, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation or disability.

“This clip has been shared and viewed online, which ultimately has caused offence and hurt to many people in our community. There is no place for hate crime in Scotland and police take all reports of incidents seriously.”

I imagine that this 28-year old would have been arrested by the actual Nazis if he had done it in Germany circa 1933-1945. He has now been arrested by our new Nazis. Who, exactly, is offended by watching a dog making a Nazi salute in front of a picture of Hitler today? If you want to see people making Nazi salutes, there are plenty of images available but you cannot arrest people for showing them in public, or perhaps you can.

Repeal of 18c anyone?

The single most important story of the Obama years

This is the single most important story in the last eight years. It involves the utterly absurd and bizarre way in which American foreign policy is made, and the absence to an infinite degree of the media as a check on government. It explains better than anything I have read why the Western world is finished and done. If you are not on top of this story, you have no serious conception about how deranged the world in which you live actually is.

I have discussed it already – The Obama White House counted on the ignorance and stupidity of the media – but my impression from the lack of interest and the comments is that no one thinks of this as anything very much at all and I don’t just mean here but everywhere. Perhaps there is a weariness in dealing with Obama and his lying that everyone just says, so what else is new? For me, however, this is one of the most clarifying stories I have ever read since what it says is that there is literally nothing that a party of the left can do that will cause outrage. Literally nothing at all. And the blame here cannot be landed on the left, but on the right, who has no idea how to fight and so far as the party administrations on the right are concerned, are of zero use at all. If anyone can read this and then worry about Donald Trump, they are too hopelessly gone. We will deserve what we get if the one lifeline we are finally thrown is rejected. All of the following are different takes on this same story.

Richard Fernandez: The Men Who Would Be King

Thomas Ricks: A stunning profile of Ben Rhodes, the asshole who is the president’s foreign policy guru

John Podhoretz: White House admits it played us for fools to sell Iran deal

Ace of Spades: Obama’s Foreign Policy (Disaster) Czar Ben Rhodes: Reporters In DC Know Absolutely Nothing. It’s Embarrassingly Easy to Spin Them, Since They Have Zero Knowledge Base

Lee Smith: Obama’s Foreign Policy Guru Boasts of How the Administration Lied to Sell the Iran Deal

The Daily Mail: White House BRAGS about how it tricked reporters into cheerleading for Obama’s Iran nuclear deal by creating a media ‘echo chamber’

Alex Griswold: Obama Advisor Openly Brags About Lying to Public, Media Yawns

Claudia Rosette: Meet the Flimflam Man Behind Obama’s Foreign Policy ‘Narrative’

Eli Lake: Obama’s Foreign Policy Guru Is the ‘Blob’ He Hates

David Gerstman:Grand Deception: How Obama and Ben Rhodes Lied Us Into the Iran nuke deal

David Rutz: Seven Takeaways from the NY Times Profile of Failed Novelist Ben Rhodes

Paul Fahri: Obama official says he pushed a ‘narrative’ to media to sell the Iran nuclear deal

Scott Johnson: The runt of Rhodes

Clarice Feldman: An Epiphany on the Road to Tehran

Jed Babbin: The Eight-Year Amateur Hour

New York Daily News: Obama’s Iran scam: The President hard sale of the nuclear deal with the mullahs was chock full of spin and half-truths

Washington Examiner: How Obama plays his adoring fans in the press

Fred Flietz: Ben Rhodes: The Sycophantic Political Operative Shaping Obama’s Foreign Policy

Nicole Duran: Obama blasts Trump: ‘This is not entertainment’ or a ‘reality show’

Ed Driscoll: BEN RHODES SAYS OTHERWISE. Obama hammers Trump: Presidential Race ‘not a reality show’

Aaron Klein: 7 Shocking Revelations in NY Times’ Profile of Obama’s Foreign Policy Guru

Aaron Klein: NY Times: White House Used ‘Often Misleading Or False’ Narrative To Sell Iran Deal To ‘Clueless’ Reporters

Allahpundit: Ben Rhodes’s brother, the day after Benghazi: The government thinks this could be a coordinated attack, not a video protest

John Podhoretz: “Meet the Press” panel doesn’t discuss Obama @morningmoneyben House gloating about scamming America on Iran and insulting WH reporters

Aaron McLean: Ben Rhodes, Liar

Lee Smith: The Ben Rhodes Blow-up

Daniel Drezner: My extremely lukewarm take on Ben Rhodes

Carlos Lozada: Why the Ben Rhodes profile in the New York Times Magazine is just gross

Clifford May: Obama’s ‘boy wonder’

Scott Johnson: The Goldberg Variations

Patrick L. Smith: Did the New York Times just accidentally tell the truth about the Obama administration?

John R. Schindler: As Boyish Ben Rhodes Drops Truth Bombs, Obama’s Media Mask Crumbles

The Diplomad: On the Iran Deal: Guess What?

Michael Totten: Washington’s Idiotic Echo Chamber

The Observer: Deception on—Not Just in—Iran

What I cannot fathom is why this is not the single most debated issue on the conservative right side of politics. There are thirty-five stories that I have collected to go with my own which are listed in the order in which they were found. Everyone sees how sensationally incredible this is, but no matter how much tinder there is, it is obviously not possible to generate genuine heat about any issue since it will never enter in any way into the mainstream media and therefore into popular consciousness. This is the world we are in. And this is the problem we are facing on the right if we cannot find a means to break through and have a scandal of such dimension recognised for what it is. You really do have to appreciate that Rhodes could say without any concern that he, a failed novelist, is the single most important influence on Obama’s foreign policy and have it confirmed by others in the White House. And I regret to say that even those among us who read these blogs don’t see this as the absolute beyond the pale scandal it is because they didn’t read it on a front page or see it repeated on the news for three nights in a row.

The Obama White House counted on the ignorance and stupidity of the media

This is how the foreign-policy media is described by the would-be novelist who manages American foreign policy: “They literally know nothing.” You don’t know about this? Maybe it’s for the best if you want to continue to sleep peacefully through the night. Just read the rest below and think how much greater the depth and professionalism of a Trump White House will be. This may be the single most astounding revelation about the abysmal Obama administration to have surfaced, although no doubt more will be revealed as the years go by.

As with almost everything else of significance, if you haven’t been following this story, it’s only because it’s almost impossible to find in your local press. But it does start at The New York Times and is about someone named Ben Rhodes: The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama’s Foreign-Policy Guru. So begin with this from the story:

The Boy Wonder of the Obama White House is now 38. . . .

As the deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, Rhodes writes the president’s speeches, plans his trips abroad and runs communications strategy across the White House, tasks that, taken individually, give little sense of the importance of his role. He is, according to the consensus of the two dozen current and former White House insiders I talked to, the single most influential voice shaping American foreign policy aside from Potus himself.

And this is a bit more on who he is and what he does:

According to Denis McDonough, Obama’s chief of staff, who is known for captaining a tight ship, “I see it throughout the day in person,” he says, adding that he is sure that in addition to the two to three hours that Rhodes might spend with Obama daily, the two men communicate remotely throughout the day via email and phone calls. Rhodes strategized and ran the successful Iran-deal messaging campaign, helped negotiate the opening of American relations with Cuba after a hiatus of more than 50 years and has been a co-writer of all of Obama’s major foreign-policy speeches. “Every day he does 12 jobs, and he does them better than the other people who have those jobs,” Terry Szuplat, the longest-tenured member of the National Security Council speechwriting corps, told me. On the largest and smallest questions alike, the voice in which America speaks to the world is that of Ben Rhodes.

And here, just a bit more, to get the full flavour of what we are dealing with, that is, an absolute policy cypher who knows nothing about foreign policy but knows a lot about how to craft a media campaign to make the policy acceptable to the ignorant and gullible:

Like Obama, Rhodes is a storyteller who uses a writer’s tools to advance an agenda that is packaged as politics but is often quite personal. He is adept at constructing overarching plotlines with heroes and villains, their conflicts and motivations supported by flurries of carefully chosen adjectives, quotations and leaks from named and unnamed senior officials. He is the master shaper and retailer of Obama’s foreign-policy narratives, at a time when the killer wave of social media has washed away the sand castles of the traditional press. His ability to navigate and shape this new environment makes him a more effective and powerful extension of the president’s will than any number of policy advisers or diplomats or spies. His lack of conventional real-world experience of the kind that normally precedes responsibility for the fate of nations — like military or diplomatic service, or even a master’s degree in international relations, rather than creative writing — is still startling.

So we proceed through the article to find this first mention of his contempt for the media, which also comes with a kind of implied contempt for Obama himself:

When Rhodes joined the Obama campaign in 2007, he arguably knew more about the Iraq war than the candidate himself, or any of his advisers. He had also developed a healthy contempt for the American foreign-policy establishment, including editors and reporters at The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Yorker and elsewhere, who at first applauded the Iraq war and then sought to pin all the blame on Bush and his merry band of neocons when it quickly turned sour. If anything, that anger has grown fiercer during Rhodes’s time in the White House. He referred to the American foreign-policy establishment as the Blob. According to Rhodes, the Blob includes Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates and other Iraq-war promoters from both parties who now whine incessantly about the collapse of the American security order in Europe and the Middle East.

But what has made this profile so infamous is this passage with its direct quotes:

Rhodes singled out a key example to me one day, laced with the brutal contempt that is a hallmark of his private utterances. “All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus,” he said. “Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.

We ought to be terrified and sickened but we’re not because we find it so hard to believe that this is the way the US is governed. But it is. Sound policy criticism, no doubt on every aspect of the Obama administrations, is messaged to death which happens because the media is ignorant and incompetent. Once you know that, and combine it with Obama’s far-far-to-the-left beliefs, much of what you see around you falls into place.

You should, by the way, read the whole article linked to above. This is the world of virtual reality we are all living in.

Julie Burchill on anti-Semitism in the Labour Party in the UK

On the continuing discussion of anti-Semitism in the UK, this, of course, gets right down to it: Labour Party “Jew-hatred” is cynical bid for Muslim vote.

The strange fruit which was allowed to blossom by a Labour Party, smug in its anti-racist credentials, has turned the party into a rotting edifice fatally riddled with the ancient disease of anti-Semitism.

The long, lonely road here started with the perfectly ­reasonable desire to be anti-racist and ended up poisoned by what I call Paint-Chart Politics.

PCP is the equally illogical inversion of conventional racism – in this case, the furthest-from-white is always right.

And, hence, the Labour Party has found itself supporting a sexist, homophobic, nihilist death cult – Islamism – just because the majority of those who practice it are dark skinned and the majority of Jews white.

Not an ounce of decency in it, nothing moral or fair-minded, similar to Labor in Australia. It’s only the votes that matter and values go up in smoke.

More on the left’s hatred of Jews

Yesterday I wrote about anti-Semistism on the left in the UK, A reflection on the hatred of Jews, and now there’s another article on the same topic, this one about the United States where the first line reads: Why does the Left hate the Jews?.

The Israeli Jews commit the double crime of insisting upon being Jews and refusing to be sacrificial victims. They were okay, in the Left’s estimate, for about five minutes, back when Israel’s future was assumed to be one of low-impact kibbutz socialism. History went in a different direction, and today Israel has one of the world’s most sophisticated economies.

For the Jew-hater, this is maddening: Throw the Jews out of Spain, and they thrive abroad. Send them to the poorest slums in New York, and those slums stop being slums. Keep them out of the Ivy League and watch NYU become a world-class institution inspired by men such as Jonas Salk, son of largely uneducated Polish immigrants. Put the Jewish state in a desert wasteland and watch it bloom, first with produce and then with technology. Israel today has more companies listed on NASDAQ than any other country except the United States and China. The economy under Palestinian management? Olives and handicrafts, and a GDP per capita that barely exceeds that of Sudan.

I quote this because it has a positive slant but the hatred remains as dangerous as ever since nothing stands still and a downward descent can be very sharply down once it begins. As he says at the end:

Israel isn’t my country, but it is my country’s ally, and it is impossible for a liberty-loving American to fail to admire what the Jewish state has done. And that, of course, is why the Left wants to see the Jewish state exterminated.

And it’s not just the Jewish state they seek to have exterminated. On this issue, there is no reasoned debate and for some no case for the defence.

YET EVEN MORE OF THE SAME: This back to the UK in an article by Nick Cohen: I saw the darkness of antisemitism, but I never thought it would get this dark. Yet this from the first para seems so off base that I found the whole article discredited even before I read the rest:

If you show me an anti-Muslim bigot, I will be able to guess his or her views on the European Union, welfare state, crime and “political correctness”.

Does he mean, show me someone who holds a conservative position on any one of these issues and I will show you someone who holds a conservative position on the others? Anti-Semites attack Jews who are merely citizens who go about their business in no way different from anyone else. If Jews were blowing up buses and murdering Christians in the Middle East in the name of their religion, not only would there be “anti-Semitism”, you would even understand why it might arise. And I doubt I would call such people bigots. So see if you can work out what identifier is missing from his penultimate para:

Allow me to state the moral argument as baldly as I can. Not just in Paris, but in Marseille, Copenhagen and Brussels, fascistic reactionaries are murdering Jews – once again.

These are not, whatever he may believe, “fascistic reactionaries”. If he cannot call them by their real name, he is just as bad as the rest.

STILL MORE: This is why the issue has become so important in the UK just at the moment:

Within a week, Britain’s Labour party leadership was forced to suspend one of its newest MPs and one of its oldest grandees — and both for the same reason.

Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn and Ken Livingstone both say that they condemn anti-Semitism. They always tend to add that they also condemn “Islamophobia and all other forms of racism,” a disclaimer that always seems a deliberate attempt to hide a hatred of Jews under the skirts of any and all criticism of Islam. What is most fascinating is that all the while they are saying this, they stoke the very thing they claim to condemn.

They pretend that the Jewish state does such things for no reason. There is no mention of the thousands of rockets that Hamas and other Islamist groups rain down on Israel from the Gaza Strip. The comment turns a highly-targeted set of retaliatory strikes by Israel against Hamas in the Gaza Strip into a “brutal” attack “on the Palestinians” as a whole. While mentioning those death-tolls, Livingstone has no interest in explaining that the State of Israel builds bunkers for its citizens to shelter in, while Hamas uses Palestinians as human shields and useful dead bodies for the television cameras, to help Hamas appear as an aggrieved “victim.”

It is the narrative of the “left” on Israel that is causing the resurgence of anti-Semitism. It is not coming from nowhere. It is coming from them. If the left wants to deal with it, they first have to deal with themselves.

“Illogical, irrational and ­patently bizarre”

From The Australian today: QUT students demand apology from Human Rights Commission in race case.

Two students accused the Human Rights Commission yesterday of “recklessly” breaching their human rights in a row stemming from a $250,000 damages claim brought by a worker who barred white students from a room at the Queensland University of Technology.

Jackson Powell and Calum Thwaites, who lodged separate complaints with the commission, are seeking a formal apology and compensation for their costs in defending racial hatred claims.

They say the commission has treated them with “flagrant indifference” because they are “white Anglo-Saxon heterosexual citizens who maintain a male gender identity”, have no criminal rec­ord, no outspoken political opinions and no record of participation in trade unions or religious sects.

Their lawyer, Tony Morris QC, said the commission’s conduct in managing the case had been “illogical, irrational and ­patently bizarre”, leading to gross unfairness to Mr Powell, Mr Thwaites and other students.

More at the link.

Which wall is it, by the way, that you want torn down?

trump protest sign

There is something so perfect about this sign, so exact, so preciously inane, so rhetorically empty yet jargon-filled that it deserves to be memorialised as almost the perfect caricature of the left. From the anti-Trump rally held in California today, by illegal migrants protesting on behalf of their assumed right to illegally migrate into the United States. But whatever they know or don’t know, however American they are or are not, they have the idiom down to its vacuous perfection.

At the other extreme, we find this from the pages of The New York Times. Trump and the Madness of Crowds. It never seems to occur to him that each of the people who end up at a Trump rally has done so deliberately with conscious intention while on their own, at their home or wherever they were before setting out to hear a political leader. And it is not they who are the mob. Each is an individual in their own right coming to listen to a political speech. The question that dominates is why do people keep voting for him when – don’t they know – he can never win the election in the fall?

Since last fall Republican voters have consistently told pollsters that they think Trump is the candidate most likely to win in November. So the party’s voters are choosing electability — as they see it — over ideology; they’re just in the grip of a strong delusion about Trump’s actual chances against Hillary Clinton.

The reason for this delusion might be the key unresolved question of Trump’s strange ascent.

Nothing to do with policy. Nothing to do with stopping a rot that many of had thought was unstoppable. Nothing to do with trying to save the United States in the form that these voters had once known. Not that at all. Trump is only popular because these voters think he is more likely to win than any other candidate. There may be a madness of crowds, but there is another version that besets political writers when they sit by themselves writing columns for other like-minded people to read.

Advice on moving to Canada in case Trump becomes President

It’s been a long, long time since I left but nothing much seems to have changed. I even used to have a shirt like that. The hat is a “touque” and has the emblem of the Montreal Canadiens (note the spelling). My team was the Toronto Maple Leafs (not Leaves!) who were voted the worst sports franchise in North America and I think they are about to retire the trophy and give it to them permanently. And among the things that are so unusual is that when I left Trudeau was Prime Minister and when I last looked, Trudeau was still Prime Minister. It’s like Cuba with Castro.

On the other hand, moving to a Trudeau-led Canada might mean things will be just like the Obama years:

Trudeau’s public performances in the physical and intellectual domains, as well as his documented appeal to female effusiveness, is a vivid expression of his followers’ utter lack of political sobriety, intellectual acumen and emotional maturity. That a country could give its support and a 66 per cent approval rating to a preening charlatan boggles the mind and beggars the imagination—or would, if Americans had not done the same with a smooth-talking ignoramus like Barack Obama, who thinks the U.S. consists of 57 states and that Austrians speak Austrian.

Canada has gone the way of the U.S. If it were not already obvious, it would take at least the eight limbs of Samadhi yogic meditation and petabytes of quantum computing to calculate the likelihood of such prodigious imbecility coming to pass, both in the leadership and the electorate, who appear to deserve one another. It makes me ashamed to be Canadian.

For Americans who are proud of having elected the most incompetent fool as their president, things will be able to continue as they have for the previous eight years.

UPDATE: He is undoubtedly right about this Trump: Americans will thank me when Lena Dunham flees to Canada, and I suppose Canadians have no one else to blame but themselves.

During a telephone interview with “Fox & Friends,” Trump was asked about a tweet from Lena Dunham on Monday in which she vowed to leave the U.S. for Vancouver if he is elected.
Trump’s response: “Well, she’s a B-actor. You know, she has no — you know, no mojo.”

“I heard Whoopi Goldberg too. That would be a great thing for our country,” Trump said, as the show flashed a graphic of celebrities who it said would leave the U.S. for Canada, including Dunham, Jon Stewart and Rosie O’Donnell, with whom the Manhattan real estate mogul has feuded for years.

When co-host Steve Doocy pointed out O’Donnell’s name on the list, Trump remarked, “Now I have to get elected.”

“Now I have to get elected because I’ll be doing a great service to our country,” he said. “Now it’s much more important. In fact, I’ll immediately get off this call and start campaigning right now.”

Hitler’s favourite religion

Hitler, like virtually all socialists, was an atheist. But religion did have its uses, with some religions more useful than others.

‘It’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion,” Hitler complained to his pet architect Albert Speer. “Why did it have to be Christianity, with its meekness and flabbiness?” Islam was a Männerreligion—a “religion of men”—and hygienic too. The “soldiers of Islam” received a warrior’s heaven, “a real earthly paradise” with “houris” and “wine flowing.” This, Hitler argued, was much more suited to the “Germanic temperament” than the “Jewish filth and priestly twaddle” of Christianity.

And how did it matter?

Muslims fought on both sides in World War II. But only Nazis and Islamists had a political-spiritual romance. Both groups hated Jews, Bolsheviks and liberal democracy. Both sought what Michel Foucault, praising the Iranian Revolution in 1979, would later call the spiritual-political “transfiguration of the world” by “combat.” The caliph, the Islamist Zaki Ali explained, was the “führer of the believers.” “Made by Jews, led by Jews—therewith Bolshevism is the natural enemy of Islam,” wrote Mahomed Sabry, a Berlin-based propagandist for the Muslim Brotherhood in “Islam, Judaism, Bolshevism,” a book that the Reich’s propaganda ministry recommended to journalists.

Moreover, the tentacles from the 1940s reach into the present and the likely future.

Haj Amin al-Husseini, the founder of Palestinian nationalism, is notorious for his efforts to persuade the Nazis to extend their genocide of the Jews to the Palestine Mandate. The Mufti met Hitler and Himmler in Berlin in 1941 and asked the Nazis to guarantee that when the Wehrmacht drove the British from Palestine, Germany would establish an Arab regime and assist in the “removal” of its Jews. Hitler replied that the Reich would not intervene in the Mufti’s kingdom, other than to pursue their shared goal: “the annihilation of Jewry living in Arab space.” The Mufti settled in Berlin, befriended Adolf Eichmann, and lobbied the governments of Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria to cancel a plan to transfer Jews to Palestine. Subsequently, some 400,000 Jews from these countries were sent to death camps. . . .

Fearing Muslim uprisings, the Allies did not try the Mufti as a war criminal; he died in Beirut in 1974, politically eclipsed by his young cousin, Mohammed Abdul Raouf al-Qudwa al-Husseini, better known as Yasser Arafat. Meanwhile, at Munich, the surviving SS volunteers, joined by refugees from the Soviet Union, formed postwar Germany’s first Islamic community, its leaders an ex-Wehrmacht imam and the erstwhile chief imam of the Eastern Muslim SS Division. In the 1950s, some of Munich’s Muslim ex-Nazis worked for the intelligence services of the U.S., tightening the “green belt against Communism.”

The most important lesson from history is how unpredictable it is. The likelihood that Christianity will be the dominant religion of Europe a century from now is already looking very unlikely and becoming less likely by the day.

An interview with Australia’s human rights commissioner – enough to make your skin crawl

Just the introduction to this interview with Jillian Triggs is enough to make the skin crawl:

After the government’s attempts to trash her reputation and to ignore most of the 16 recommendations in The Forgotten Children report, she’s just back from Geneva where the United Nations review of our human rights record found we’d regressed. Australia, the review found, continues to be in breach of its human rights obligations.

Triggs’ reputation has been self-trashing with no outside assistance required. The interview shows an astonishing level of arrogant ignorance, the basic setting for pretty well everyone on the left. It also shows a fantastic ignorance of the philosophy of Edmund Burke, who understood perfectly well in the 1790s the dangers in trying to implement some abstract set of human rights, which were part of his reflections on the Revolution in France. A bit from Burke, which she would have no comprehension of:

The foundation of government is . . . laid, not in imaginary rights of men, (which at best is a confusion of judicial with civil principles,) but in political convenience, and in human nature; either as that nature is universal, or as it is modified by local habits and social aptitudes.

Some highlights from the interview.

We’ve had, in my view, very poor leadership on this issue for the past 10 to 15 years, from the “children overboard” lie. They’ve been prepared to misstate the facts and conflate asylum-seeker issues with global terrorism. What I’m saying applies equally to Labor and Liberal and National parties. [Where are the Greens?] They’ve used this in bad faith to promote their own political opportunistic positions. . . .

I find myself saying pompous things like, “Please don’t break the rules here in the camp. If you do they declare you noncompliant and you end up staying longer or they are spiteful to you. Please be patient.” You can hear I’m not saying anything very comforting. The government has used the word unlawful [in relation to asylum seekers] and George Orwell understood the power of language very well. In the department you have a minister saying, “You will call these people ‘illegals’.” It’s shocking that Australia would come to that depth of abuse of power. . . .

A shocking phenomenon is Australians don’t even understand their own democratic system. They are quite content to have parliament be complicit with passing legislation to strengthen the powers of the executive and to exclude the courts. They have no idea of the separation of powers and the excessive overreach of executive government. . . .

“I must stay calm, I must keep my answers measured, moderate and evidence-based, I mustn’t be rattled by them and I mustn’t react with the same lack of courtesy that they show to me.” The reality was that they could suffer no harm from this, whereas if I gave the wrong answers, I could lose my case and I just had to keep control of myself. I knew we had the law right and the facts right. I knew that anger was under the surface. I knew I could have responded and destroyed them – I could have said, “You’ve asked me a question that demonstrated you have not read our statute. How dare you question what I do?” . . .

Some parliamentarians, and surprising ones, a Nationals MP, says “Come and give us a seminar.” Another one asked me to come up and work in parliament with the members of a particular committee that she was on. Terrific! But they listened to me and do you know, the response of some of them was, “Well, we had no idea Australia had signed up to these treaties. We should withdraw from them!”

I’ve just turned 70 and I’ve been doing this for a long time and I’m so confident about the law and about the evidence for the law not being respected that I feel very sure-footed in going forward on these other issues. My resilience and determination and experience for a long time in the law give me the determination to get through the remaining 15 months to continue to speak out. When you see that you are being bullied by people who you know are not coming from a good place, you know you don’t have to give in to them. They are cowards and the moment you stand up to them they crumble, and they did crumble. And several now have been seen off long before me. They’re not used to a woman aged 70 standing up to them. They can’t quite believe it. If I were 40 looking for a career opportunity, I probably wouldn’t do what I’ve done because it would have queered the pitch for me professionally. But why do I care now? I can do what I’m trained to do and they almost can’t touch me. And I’ll continue to do that work when I’ve finished with this position.

The whole interview is a reminder of how lacking in balance these people are. Read the whole thing. Quite a revelation in the mindset of the left.