Sacked Australian SBS journalist who made some rather disgusting comments on ANZAC Day tries to sue - Polidicks

[quote]Sacked SBS journalist Scott McIntyre is suing the broadcaster for discrimination after it dismissed him for expressing controversial views about Anzac Day on Twitter. An application has been lodged with the Fair Work Commission claiming SBS breached its policies and did not follow due process when it sacked the soccer reporter. McIntyre was sacked after tweeting on Anzac Day that "'brave' Anzacs in Egypt, Palestine and Japan" were involved in "summary execution, widespread rape and theft". Other tweets said: "Not forgetting that the largest single-day terrorist attacks in history were committed by this nation & their allies in Hiroshima & Nagasaki" and "the cultification of an imperialist invasion of a foreign nation that Australia had no quarrel with is against all ideals of modern society".[/quote] [url]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-18/scott-mcintyre-sues-sbs-over-sacking-for-anzac-day-tweets/6478816[/url] Good luck, not may are going to be siding with that cunt.

[QUOTE] "the cultification of an imperialist invasion of a foreign nation that Australia had no quarrel with is against all ideals of modern society".[/QUOTE] uh, isn't that exactly the reason for anzac day? to commemorate the deaths of many anzac soldiers for basically no reason except to serve the motherland?

:/ Didn't he get fired on the 26th? That'd put the lodgment of his application over the 21 day limit, in which case he has to prove exceptional circumstances for not being able to file the application before the 21 days. Unfortunately, I know the case law too well in this area.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;47748619]:/ Didn't he get fired on the 26th? That'd put the lodgment of his application over the 21 day limit, in which case he has to prove exceptional circumstances for not being able to file the application before the 21 days. Unfortunately, I know the case law too well in this area.[/QUOTE] You may know the law well but you may not know the distinction between statutory law and case law. I really doubt that the law you quoted is of the latter and not the former. Pretty sure that 21 day limit is set by statute in a fair work act, not law created by a judge.

[QUOTE=MrBunneh;47748599]uh, isn't that exactly the reason for anzac day? to commemorate the deaths of many anzac soldiers for basically no reason except to serve the motherland?[/QUOTE] Yeah, but he posted it it on his company twitter profile.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;47748648]Pretty sure that 21 day limit is set by statute in a fair work act, not law created by a judge.[/QUOTE] The case law is regarding the exceptional circumstances. It isn't defined in the Act. The 21 days is.

Lol Australia had no Quarrel with Japan? I'd love to see him tell that to the surviving soldiers who fought on the Kokoda track. Or how about the people of Darwin who were bombed the shit out of by japanese pilots? I'm getting a bit sick of this new culture of dolts who summarize everything into this myth of the great white boogeyman raping the world.

Go Fuck Yaself

Has he read up on WW2 at all?

[QUOTE=Mallow234;47748865]Has he read up on WW2 at all?[/QUOTE] If you think a lot of the talk that surrounds ANZAC day is about WW[I]2[/I] then you're sorely mistaken. All of the talk of Gallipoli and the ANZACs was WW1 and we very much were the bad guys in that conflict. We literally invaded another country that had done [I]nothing[/I] to us.

[QUOTE=sltungle;47748941]We literally invaded another country that had done [I]nothing[/I] to us.[/QUOTE] Technically you could say the same thing about the UK's involvement in WW1 as a whole since the only thing Germany had "done" to the United Kingdom was invade Belgium, who happened to be an ally. Hell you could say that for any country in WW1. The thing was an outright mess. [editline]penis[/editline] The reason I mention the UK is because if it weren't for the UK's involvement in the Great War, the commonwealth wouldn't have set foot in Europe.

[QUOTE=sltungle;47748941]If you think a lot of the talk that surrounds ANZAC day is about WW[I]2[/I] then you're sorely mistaken. All of the talk of Gallipoli and the ANZACs was WW1 and we very much were the bad guys in that conflict. We literally invaded another country that had done [I]nothing[/I] to us.[/QUOTE] If you knew anything of WWI you'd know there was no such thing as good guys and bad guys in that war. There were no righteous causes being fought for on either side. It was entirely the cause of mutually binding alliances that sucked the entire european continent and surrounding regions into a pointless war. The only thing gained from WWI was the knowledge that secret, binding alliances are a terrible idea. Australia was no more a bad guy than Germany.

[QUOTE]"Not forgetting that the largest single-day terrorist attacks in history were committed by this nation & their allies in Hiroshima & Nagasaki"[/QUOTE] I see opinions like this crop up every once in a while and I always wonder, if it had been Germany that was nuked would this guy still be calling it a "terrorist attack"? I only say this because Japan apologia often takes on a racial overtone that seemingly provides people with cover for their historical revisionism with regards to Japanese imperialism, racism and ethnic cleansing.

[QUOTE=ossumsauce;47749089]If you knew anything of WWI you'd know there was no such thing as good guys and bad guys in that war. There were no righteous causes being fought for on either side. It was entirely the cause of mutually binding alliances that sucked the entire european continent and surrounding regions into a pointless war. The only thing gained from WWI was the knowledge that secret, binding alliances are a terrible idea. Australia was no more a bad guy than Germany.[/QUOTE] Yes, but we were 'more' the bad guys than the Turkish. We barreled into their homeland and killed them for... no reason other than, well, like you said, alliances. It was a war we had no part in. We shouldn't have been there, but we were, and we hardly did anything constructive while we were there. If I had to call somebody the good guys or the bad guys in the Gallipoli campaign, I sure as hell know I wouldn't be calling the Australians the good guys.

[quote]"Not forgetting that the largest single-day terrorist attacks in history were committed by this nation & their allies in Hiroshima & Nagasaki"[/quote] Because the alternative of a full land invasion would have been so much better? Or would it have been okay because instead of hundreds of thousands dying in a few days, millions would have died over months or years?

[QUOTE=dilzinyomouth;47748754]I'm getting a bit sick of this new culture of dolts who summarize everything into this myth of the great white boogeyman raping the world.[/QUOTE] Well imperialism did sorta fuck up the entire african continent

[QUOTE=sltungle;47749116]Yes, but we were 'more' the bad guys than the Turkish. We barreled into their homeland and killed them for... no reason other than, well, like you said, alliances. It was a war we had no part in. We shouldn't have been there, but we were, and we hardly did anything constructive while we were there. If I had to call somebody the good guys or the bad guys in the Gallipoli campaign, I sure as hell know I wouldn't be calling the Australians the good guys.[/QUOTE] Nobody should have been there. America shouldnt have been there. England shouldnt have been there. Germany shouldnt have been there. Russia and the Ottoman Empire shouldnt have been there. I don't know why some people have a hard-on for making themselves out to be the bad guys when there is no such thing, at least in this circumstance. The whole war shouldnt have happened, and not a single participant should have been there. The fact that you think there IS a good guys/bad guys in war at all is the fatal error you're making. WWI was tragic because IT SHOULDNT HAVE HAPPENED. THATS THE POINT. [editline]18th May 2015[/editline] War isn't constructive, it's the exact god damn opposite. The Aussies didn't do anything that anybody didn't do first in that war. Cut your country some damn slack.

its all austria-hungary's fault, anyways

i love how he tries so hard to make himself sound smart

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;47749629]i love how he tries so hard to make himself sound smart[/QUOTE] The default attitude for intelligence right now seems to be this kind of """self-awareness""" of your countries "bad deeds". The more you denounce your government for bad things it does, the more you look like a revolutionary, the smarter you look. "Oh wow, this guy seems really woken up about all the bad things our country has done! They must be supremely educated and intelligent to know that much!" [editline]18th May 2015[/editline] It's just Wake Up Sheeple Syndrome. [editline]18th May 2015[/editline] AKA WUSS.

[QUOTE=ossumsauce;47749718]The default attitude for intelligence right now seems to be this kind of """self-awareness""" of your countries "bad deeds". The more you denounce your government for bad things it does, the more you look like a revolutionary, the smarter you look. "Oh wow, this guy seems really woken up about all the bad things our country has done! They must be supremely educated and intelligent to know that much!" [editline]18th May 2015[/editline] It's just Wake Up Sheeple Syndrome. [editline]18th May 2015[/editline] AKA WUSS.[/QUOTE] When it gets to the point of self-flagellation, yeah, it's a problem. There's absolutely no reason not to recognize and learn from our past mistakes, though. No reason we can't recognize the hard work and sacrifice of the soldiers, either.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;47749795]When it gets to the point of self-flagellation, yeah, it's a problem. There's absolutely no reason not to recognize and learn from our past mistakes, though. No reason we can't recognize the hard work and sacrifice of the soldiers, either.[/QUOTE] Agreed. America has done some really, really fucked up things but i don't generally decree that all things American are bad because America has done some Bad Things, of which i personally know people that say exactly that. My countries' history is very spotted and our government is currently pretty awful but that doesn't mean i don't love my country. I especially have a problem with individuals who shit on holidays such as Memorial Day because our government has fought wars that were questionable at best, as if that has anything to do with the point of Memorial Day. Many people forget that Memorial Day IS NOT about the wars themselves, but the men and women who sacrificed themselves for their country across our history.

[QUOTE=Levithan;47749393]Well imperialism did sorta fuck up the entire african continent[/QUOTE] And Europe has not apologized at all, especially the Dutch.

[QUOTE=Levithan;47749393]Well imperialism did sorta fuck up the entire african continent[/QUOTE] It was fucked before Europeans got there. We just gave them more effective weapons to kill eachother with.

I remember this. The guy is a complete joke, and is trying to look smart by talking about topics he knows nothing about.

[QUOTE=Levithan;47749393]Well imperialism did sorta fuck up the entire african continent[/QUOTE] I've heard this loads of times, but I've never really seen an explanation of how imperialism fucked Africa up. I'm of course aware of the many atrocities committed by Europe all the way into the 20th century, but fucking something up largely has the meaning "making something worse". Would Africa be better off today with absolutely no European intervention of any kind? Of course that's a pretty hard question to answer, but if anyone has some good literature on the subject matter, I'd be happy.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;47755621]I've heard this loads of times, but I've never really seen an explanation of how imperialism fucked Africa up. I'm of course aware of the many atrocities committed by Europe all the way into the 20th century, but fucking something up largely has the meaning "making something worse". Would Africa be better off today with absolutely no European intervention of any kind? Of course that's a pretty hard question to answer, but if anyone has some good literature on the subject matter, I'd be happy.[/QUOTE] You're not going to see anyone qualify it because its a populist opinion that is largely bullshit and conveniently simplifies many complex factors. Its like people blaming slavery on "whites" conveniently ignoring that several African kingdoms centralized their economy around the slave trade. They sold their own people, willingly. Or as much as Africans viewed other African tribes as their own people back then, which they did not. The Ashanti in particular viewed other tribes as below them. Chattel slavery was particularly endemic to Africans and Arabs well before any ventures into Indies or Americas by white Europeans.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;47755621]I've heard this loads of times, but I've never really seen an explanation of how imperialism fucked Africa up. I'm of course aware of the many atrocities committed by Europe all the way into the 20th century, but fucking something up largely has the meaning "making something worse". Would Africa be better off today with absolutely no European intervention of any kind? Of course that's a pretty hard question to answer, but if anyone has some good literature on the subject matter, I'd be happy.[/QUOTE] I think [url=http://exhibitions.nypl.org/africanaage/essay-colonization-of-africa.html]this[/url] is a good read on the subject. [editline]19th May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=dilzinyomouth;47756078]You're not going to see anyone qualify it because its a populist opinion that is largely bullshit and conveniently simplifies many complex factors. Its like people blaming slavery on "whites" conveniently ignoring that several African kingdoms centralized their economy around the slave trade. They sold their own people, willingly. Or as much as Africans viewed other African tribes as their own people back then, which they did not. The Ashanti in particular viewed other tribes as below them. Chattel slavery was particularly endemic to Africans and Arabs well before any ventures into Indies or Americas by white Europeans.[/QUOTE] Ah yes it was solely the slave trade's fault, and not the forced westernization attempts or the destruction of entire societies as European powers took control away from the natives.

[QUOTE=Levithan;47757751]I think [url=http://exhibitions.nypl.org/africanaage/essay-colonization-of-africa.html]this[/url] is a good read on the subject.[/QUOTE] I read through that and then the article about decolonization. I guess what I'm asking is; if Europe had not colonized Africa and instead left the continent completely alone, would African nations be more advanced today? The first article downplays the amount of organization the colonists actually employed, but then the second one talks about a lack of qualified administrators after the white rulers left as a reason for the instability of the country: [QUOTE]In addition, the senior administrators who ran the colonies were removed with European rule, to be replaced by Africans with far less experience. Moreover, the political system that African leaders inherited was structured to benefit the evolving ruling classes with little regard for the needs of the people.[/QUOTE] That means that at some point (maybe not during the initial colonization) some sort of fairly important administration was set up. Would the nation in question have developed an equivalent system in the same timeframe? What about technologically diffusion - doesn't it make sense that the European rulers would use more advanced technology (industrialization) to extract as many resources as possible? Would the African nations in question have acquired that technology themselves as quickly without colonial rule? In general the second article blames cold war politics and the polarization of the world for the instability of African nations from the 60's, but would Africa (or really any area with resources) be able to be neutral throughout the cold war, had colonization never happened? I don't really think so. Again, this is not to detract from all the terrible shit that happened under colonial rule, but I don't really see that as compelling evidence that African nations would've been much better off without colonization today (if we measure success in BNP at least).