The Post’s comment on the impossibility of a Muhammad cartoon was revealing. This indicates that the charge of Islamophobia is really just a call to silence criticism of Islam for fear of retribution.
A couple of people, including an ex-journo, have since commented that it’s poor form to make a separate section like the reporter has here, simply to ensure that the names aren’t missed. Normally, the people might get mentioned in the content of the article, or the just the group might be mentioned, but to make a separate and specific section at the end like this reporter has, so the names aren’t missed, is spiteful.
I can see that, Katrina, just saying that the names can be mentioned and normally would be but, as you say, in the body of the article.
This is why so few people will put their head above the parapet because there is then a risk of this kind of reporting which you really can't do anything about as long as it stays the correct side of defamatory.
Anyway have cross posted your excellent piece, thanks as ever, and hope to get to read the judgment:
Someone should point out to all the people celebrating Wokington’s “queerness” that encouraging people to trample their precious flag underfoot with their dirty shoes is a bit of an own goal. Or maybe it's a symbol of the repressed loathing many of these “activists” feel for themselves.
The Post’s comment on the impossibility of a Muhammad cartoon was revealing. This indicates that the charge of Islamophobia is really just a call to silence criticism of Islam for fear of retribution.
Yes! And which other accusations of “phobia” does the same….hmmmm? 🤔
Such a candidate admission!
Nonsense. Both exist.
Hi Katrina
Excellent piece.
The rainbow crossing applicants are named in the judgment so it would be open to any journalist to name them.
Bad luck to them. I will read the judgment with interest.
Surely those making the puberty blocker decision should be a matter of public record!?
Glad to see position of NZ First.
Will cross post in due course 😊
Dusty
A couple of people, including an ex-journo, have since commented that it’s poor form to make a separate section like the reporter has here, simply to ensure that the names aren’t missed. Normally, the people might get mentioned in the content of the article, or the just the group might be mentioned, but to make a separate and specific section at the end like this reporter has, so the names aren’t missed, is spiteful.
I can see that, Katrina, just saying that the names can be mentioned and normally would be but, as you say, in the body of the article.
This is why so few people will put their head above the parapet because there is then a risk of this kind of reporting which you really can't do anything about as long as it stays the correct side of defamatory.
Anyway have cross posted your excellent piece, thanks as ever, and hope to get to read the judgment:
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/spirited-away
Dusty
BTW I think the puberty blocker decision should be challenged. That must be wrong!!!???
Someone should point out to all the people celebrating Wokington’s “queerness” that encouraging people to trample their precious flag underfoot with their dirty shoes is a bit of an own goal. Or maybe it's a symbol of the repressed loathing many of these “activists” feel for themselves.