Selective outrage and the Aurukun r-pe case:

David Mendelssohn writes: Re. “Selective outrage does nothing to advance sentencing debate” (yesterday, item 12). I am most grateful to Greg Barns for his attempt to bring a bit of reason and, dare I mention them, the facts into the media frenzy over the Aurukun r-pe case in his two articles, the first on Wednesday 12 December and the other today, Thursday 13 December. The outraged response of a number of readers to the first suggests that they did not actually read what Greg wrote. They obviously skimmed the article to get the “line” it was taking and then went off frothing at the mouth with righteous indignation. I would ask those who might be tempted to do likewise to actually go back and read carefully and slowly what Greg wrote. He did not justify the r-pe of the girl and he did not suggest that the girl consented, although he did have the effrontery to point out, based on his reading of the transcript, that the Judge did not say she consented either, as has been widely promoted by the gutter media. And he is absolutely right to point out, in the second article, the hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty of screaming the house down when a court hands down what is deemed to be an overly lenient sentence (invariably without the critics knowing the full facts) but showing no interest whatever in correcting manifestly excessive and unjust sentences.

Andrew Maiden writes: Congratulations to Greg Barns for asking hard questions about judges’ sentencing patterns. What matters more than the severity or leniency of sentences is their consistency and the speed with which the justice system dishes them out. Victims and criminals are poorly served by a system where the severity of a penalty hinges on the lottery of judge allocation or the selective moral indignation of the media. A healthy democracy depends on people freely asking questions about the transparency and consistency of decision-making in public institutions. This should happen without morally righteous folks attacking the messenger for daring to ask hard questions. Let’s face it: our legal system is only remaining public institution not forced to be transparent and accountable to those who fund it. Why can’t we compare sentencing decisions, or for that matter review the appeal-rate of judges’ decisions, without collective hysteria. Sure, the Aurukun sentences are lenient, but which of its critics sat in court and understood more of the facts than they read in The Daily Telegraph. Let’s grow up and have a sensible debate about a serious issue.

Chris Davis writes: More strength to you Greg Barns to continue your struggle against the whole law and order nonsense and outrage expressed in our media about matters of which most people are too ignorant or ill-informed to really make any decent contribution. Whilst some aspects of this case as reported to me via our media sound concerning, and I have two daughters, who the hell am I to make any reasoned comment on this case informed only by a few dramatic headlines? R-pe and the associated trauma is also an area in which I have no expertise, except I do know that guilty pleas are the absolute best outcome for a victim. I also know that a lot of society’s “outrage” is so easily media manipulated, and always includes hidden agendas. I also understand our innocent before proven guilty rule and its associated rule that it is better for society to let some guilty people get off if it means we never imprison an innocent person.

The Libs and the elephant in the room:

Tim Warner writes: Re. Yesterday’s editorial. Your editorial calls for a recognition of the Elephant in the Room – that the Libs didn’t arrange a handover to Costello in 05 or 06. What twaddle. Out of government in nine jurisdictions out of nine and having Peter Costello would solve this? Look back to the Valder Report (as Nick Minchin noted in The Australian, 13 December), get some members, get them involved – stop the sidelining of all who disagree with whatever conventional wisdom holds. A key point is that the Party be capable of critiquing the Party’s performance whilst in government and holding it to account versus the platform and policies supported by the membership. There is the Elephant in the Room, providing a means for the membership to participate rather than be regarded as the dull child dragged along by those who are older and wiser.

The Greens and Bali:

Philip Woods writes: Re. “What do Bali and Samuel Beckett have in common?” (Wednesday, item 13). Christine Milne has answered the post-election question “why are the greens no longer relevant?” Milne shows herself to be a single issue player. Australia voted for Rudd because he showed a clear vision across a broad spectrum of critical issues. One of those critical issues was global warming. Preceding and throughout the campaign he clearly articulated that solutions and targets would be arrived at through an extensive consultation and would be fully costed before release. Rudd promised that following the July presentation of the Garnaut report, he would deliver full targets and strategies before the end of the year. Garnaut said that the Bali forum will lead to at least two years of discussions to provide a pathway and a timetable for solutions. Milne is wishing for another Howard-type effort similar to his Darling River solution that was derived over a long lunch with no involvement from stakeholders or even Treasury. She even has the temerity to suggest that Rudd should be more like Howard in his decisiveness – if he was more like Howard then he wouldn’t have even been there Christine, because Howard said there was no greenhouse threat and any attempts at carbon-emission reduction would be devastating for the economy. So not only is Rudd displaying strong leadership and environmental awareness, he is enacting good economic conservatism – you might have heard that once or twice somewhere. He would have looked a dilettante if he had arrived in Bali and rolled out targets. No wonder the Greens don’t figure on the political landscape.

Flint and Kyoto:

Adam Rope writes: Re. “Flint: Beware the carpetbaggers in the Kyoto debate” (Wednesday, item 14). My take on David Flint’s article on Wednesday was that he had simply refined and distilled all the tired old arguments against Global Warming, such as found on Andrew Bolt’s increasingly hysterical ‘campaign’ on his blog, where he rails against anyone who promotes Anthropogenic Global Warming, or AGW, as a “warmener”. All the usual suspects of anti-AGW argument were there, presented as fact when they are far from it. From the farcical “AGW proponents attending the Bali meeting are Green hypocrites for flying in aeroplanes” that avoids the actual issue, to the usual ‘wedge’ tactic of “there is no consensus among scientists that man-made emissions are the significant cause”. This argument is always raised because someone on the ‘denial’, or sceptical, side has found one or two dissenting pseudo-scientific voices, usually from rather dodgy, and non-peer reviewed, sources on the web – and since most readers of such material have little idea of the actual science involved (obscure arguments about which analysis or calculation to use to decide the effect, or not, of the sun on CO2 concentrations in the troposphere, anyone?), then any article looks as ‘scientific’, and therefore believable, as any other. Whereas, in the real world, the broad majority of real scientists who do research do agree that Global Warming is happening, but possibly disagree on the how and the why, and that we need to do something about it soon. Finally Flint takes it all the way through to the “any action on AGW will cost us billions, completely stuff up the economy, and we don’t know if it would work” argument, which is possibly equivalent to the rather silly “cost of becoming a republic” analysis that is available on his own ACM site. Yes David, we do not know the full cost of taking action yet, which is why meetings such as Bali need to happen in the first place, and why reports like that of Sir Nicholas Stern are written. Plus we do know the potential cost if we do not act, and soon, which is the far greater economical costs related to a thoroughly degraded environment in many parts of the planet.

Mike Huckabee, screwier than a br-thel:

Cathy Bannister writes: Re. “US 08: Everyone hearts Huckabee” (Wednesday, item 17). We don’t generally appreciate how progressive Australian politics is compared with the US, so when blogger Ben Alder describes Mike Huckabee as ‘staunchly conservative’, we might not immediately understand just what that means. Huckabee is on the record as stating that the US should be able to bomb Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan at will (without clearing it with the Pakistani government first); in 1992, that AIDS victims should be isolated; and 1998 he put his signature to a full-page USA Today ad stating that “A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband.” Don’t be reassured by his desiccated Kevin Spacey face – the bloke is screwier than a br-thel.

Chin music:

Michael Frost writes: Re. “Alston not the answer to Libs organisational woes” (yesterday, item 9). I have to object to Norman Abjorensen’s (Item 9, today) reference to the “chinless conservative cheer squad” applauding Richard Alston’s work with the ABC as Minister for Communications. While it is true that some members of the conservative cheer squad lack chins, I note that, in aggregate, the conservative cheer squad probably has surplus chins due to the admirable efforts of one P. Akerman (and who knows how many P. P. McGuinness is concealing under that beard).

The republic:

Lyn Petrie writes: In response to John Bower (yesterday, comments) on the republic. I am pleased to hear you support the idea in principle. Shall we just find out how the other 20 odd million Australians feel as well? I think you missed the “non binding plebiscite” part of my comment – which equals No blank cheque but an indication of how Australians feel in principle. We allowed the debate to get hijacked by the various models on show last time. I would be more than happy to debate the merits of different models when an indicative plebiscite has been held, and a majority have said they support the idea. My focus at this time is to say, I want an Australian head of state – Do You?

Where are the IPOs?:

Ben Loiterton writes: Re. “New media – where are the IPOs?” (Yesterday, item 26). There is plenty of local action with small-cap digital media companies on the ASX! Well known groups on the move include Destra, Hyro, Blue Freeway and obviously Photon. But there is lots of action in the mobile content space – check out recently floated Mercury Mobility, Mobile Active, Jumbuck, Loop, Zing. Unlisted North Sydney company Mobile Messenger quietly sold out the other day in the US for a rumoured $100m. There are a heap of brand new start-ups in this space (some, ironically, I have met in Surry Hills pubs) and the sector is about to explode. By the end of the decade ARIA says ring-tone sales will exceed revenue from traditional CD sales. Mobile content and ad driven services are going to be really significant, very very soon. Watch when the iPhone goes on sale next year. There are dozens of unlisted niche web publishers popping up (seen homepagedaily.com?) and podcasting is quietly taking over the wires – look at the ABC.net download traffic. In telco/ broadband there is action at BigAir, Engin, Pipe Networks, Tel.pacific, M2 and now Unwired has been swallowed by SEV – expect to see some impressive capex there in 08. Next Wednesday watch for the IPO of MCM Entertainment – Michael Gudinski and Tony McGinn’s new media company… I may be talking up my book, but there are some really interesting operations on the boards that are not getting the attention they deserve. Expect to see a flurry of private investor funding rounds, IPOs and M&A in this area in 2008.

Stephen Mayne:

Happy little ANZ shareholder, Tim Le Roy, writes: Re. “Credible outside candidate takes on ANZ” (yesterday, item 32). When are you going to stop giving Stephen Mayne a free ego trip over his continued failure to be elected to anything greater than the local kindergarten food committee? It is plainly obvious to any reasonable observer that anyone who has had $250 billion of shareholder votes against them doesn’t have any value to offer. Mayne seems to take affront to shareholders’ opinions of his capabilities but guess what Steve? You ain’t getting the message, they just don’t value your skills, Mate. Move on, stick to gossip columns.

Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and c*ck-ups to boss@crikey.com.au. Preference will be given to comments that are short and succinct: maximum length is 200 words (we reserve the right to edit comments for length). Please include your full name – we won’t publish comments anonymously unless there is a very good reason.