Q & A and Free Speech part 2

I previously commented on the Q&A brouhaha HERE. . Steve From Brisbane writes again on the topic.
Mediawatch looked at this and made some sensible comments. The best one being Mallah should have asked the question like David Hicks did in a past Q&A. Incidentally Howard showed a lot more class in his reply than any of the present mob.
What was interesting that all the usual suspects who had a go at the ABC are all divisive people who have reputations for being loose with the truth as they have been here.

A few thoughts on the overall topic.

• Wilson and Kelly on Q&A looked prize prats ( a technical term) in arguing their positions. News Ltd could interview the man but Q&A couldn't have him. It is bad the ABC has him live but not if TEN has him live!Wilson approves of free Speech but not for Mallah.
• Kelly said the legislation went through all the usual cabinet areas and was advised by their experts. No if only two misters had read the discussion paper then it most definitely did not go through the usual procedures and no expert would propose unconstitutional legislation
• Turnbull looked a prize idiot in saying Mallah was a security threat to the audience but wouldn't be in a shopping centre. If he was a security threat was was he free? 
• Ciobo was lying about his knowledge about Mallah's case. As the Lady said he was found innocent and he was born here i.e. he cannot be deported anywhere.
• Mallah is not a convicted terrorist
• Mallah does not support ISIL. Indeed he is totally against them as the Lady pointed out last nigh on Q&A.
• If the government and News Ltd demonise Mallah who is against ISIL then that plays into ISIL propaganda
• The only people coming back to Australia from either Syria or Iraq are firstly disillusioned and secondly as David Kilcullen has pointed out are not involved in fighting. Such people have been found to be highly effective in countering ISIL recruitment overseas. This cannot happen if their citizenship is revoked.

If one didn't know any better then one would conclude the government, News Ltd and others were deliberately aiding and abetting ISIL recruitment.

Andrew Catsaras is spot on. So is Chris Graham