★★★★★ 0/5

Q & A viewers shocked by call to join terrorism group

Updated: ABC says Q&A made "an error of judgment" in allowing a man to ask a question and will review audience procedures.

27
Leave a comment

2015-06-23_0010

A live debate on Q & A about proposed changes to citizenship shocked many viewers last night when a man in the audience openly advocated for Australian Muslims to join ISIS in Syria.

Zaky Mallah raised a question on what might have happened if politicians, not courts, had decided his case when he was the first man charged and confined under Howard govt terrorism laws in 2003.

“I had done and said some stupid things including threatening to kidnap and kill. But in 2005 I was acquitted of those terrorism charges,” he stated.

“As a plea bargain happened I pleaded guilty to threatening to kill (Commonwealth) officials.”

But Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs and Trade Steve Ciobo told Mallah he understood him to be acquitted on a technicality.

“I would be pleased to be part of a government that would say you would be out of the country, as far as I’m concerned,” he said.

But Q & A soon found itself on very shaky ground when Mallah told the panel, “The Liberals now have just justified to many Australian Muslims in the community tonight, to go to Syria tonight and join ISIS because of ministers like him.”

With that Tony Jones quickly ruled the comment out of order and proceeded to wrap up the show with a rebuttal by Ciobo.

On social media some viewers questioned the choice of giving Mallah airtime.

https://twitter.com/jamesmacpherson/status/612973977980440576

But some stood up for the show’s agenda of open discussion.

Meanwhile 7:30 reported Australians Khaled Sharrouf and Mohamed Elomar, who joined Islamic State terror group, have reportedly been killed in Iraq.

UPDATED:

ABC Director of Television Richard Finlayson has issued a statement:

In attempting to explore important issues about the rights of citizens and the role of the Government in fighting terrorism, the Q&A program made an error in judgement in allowing Zaky Mallah to join the audience and ask a question.

Mr Mallah has been interviewed by the Australian media on a number of occasions. The environment of a live television broadcast, however, meant it would not be possible for editorial review of the comments he might make prior to broadcast, particularly if he engaged in debate beyond his prepared question.

Tony Jones correctly and immediately ruled a statement made by Mr Mallah as out of order.

Q&A will continue to raise issues that are provocative and controversial. There is always risk in undertaking live television.That is the nature of the Q&A program since it first aired in 2008.

As has been the case in the past on Q&A, circumstances will happen that are not anticipated. The critical question is whether risks could have been managed and the right editorial judgments made in advance.

The circumstances of Mr Mallah’s appearance will be reviewed by the ABC.

Meanwhile Liberal politicians have taken aim at the ABC enabling extremist views with some going as far as calling on the show to be axed.

27 Responses

  1. We have a government that believes it to be okay to conduct dodgy ‘border protection’ practices without any need for accountability to anyone; a government that condones a system in which asylum seekers are indefinitely detained in a country that threatens imprisonment of anyone who dares to expose corruption and abuse in their detention camps; a government that wants one minister to be given the power of jurisdiction over the rights of our citizens; a government that wants to censor the public media for allowing people to speak their mind … could we be seeing a benevolent dictatorship beginning take shape within our ‘democratic’ system? Or are we seeing a government drumming up hysteria for its own political ends.

  2. So Richard Finlayson and Mark Scott go weak at the knees and apologise when somebody on Q & A expresses a view the government doesn’t like. It is a sad state at the ABC that it will no longer stand up for freedom of speech. Hasn’t the ABC realised yet that kowtowing to the Abbot government won’t help them at all. It was the same under Howard. The Coalition has always hated the ABC and will always try to muzzle it by cutting funding and blatant intimidation. You can never please them. So ABC why not stand for something?

    1. Tony Abbott, who has declined invitations to appear on Q&A for 1773 days (that’s nearly 5 years), is consistent in his hatred of the ABC and in particular of their impertinent journalists and Q&A audience members who might actually ask questions that are not pre-determined in his favour. He really is the most anti-democratic PM we have had for, well, ever, but also one of the most effective in this because the ABC is certainly scared of him.

  3. When did everyone get to be so prissy?! The whole point of Q&A – and the ABC, for that matter – is to provide a platform for social and cultural debate – and, like it or not, that might sometimes include some extreme and objectionable views. I’d much rather see and hear what kind of nutters are out there than have the vague suspicion that we’re being “protected” from views that somebody somewhere is appointed to judge “unacceptable”. It’s a very short leap from that kind of censorship to something like McCarthyism, or worse.

    The fact that Mallah was a barely articulate doofus makes the outrage even sillier. If he can inspire others like him to arms, then I suspect ASIO and our various police forces would have very little trouble rounding them all up. I suspect they’d be dim enough to write “terrorist” on their passport applications.

    As for the Liberals…

  4. I thought the point of Q&A was to allow people to air their opinions, no matter how unusual or out of step. Didn’t hear any outcry from One Term Tony when Fred Nile was on last week.

    Q&A is about freedom of speech, and that is something Abbott hates. He believe in FOS when it is saying what he wants to hear (i.e. Bolt, Jones, Hadley, Sky etc), but when it is anything else, he is the first to shriek bias.

    Australia continues to be at a very dangerous time in our history in terms of our privacy and right to speech laws. I can see this mob wanting to water them down every chance they get. Sorry Steve Liebmann, but this time we need to be alert, and alarmed, from what Canberra has planned.

    1. “a man in the audience openly advocated for Australian Muslims to join ISIS in Syria” Again I say no he was not! Mallah said, in effect, that comments from one of the panellists(Ciobo) would likely spur muslims to join ISIL. If a group is persecuted long enough, they’ll rebel against their persecutors. No matter how ugly and grotesque the policies of ISIL are, it’s the comments from Ciobo on Q & A that will likely drive up recruitment for this obsence group. Think Ireland and the formation of their republic – get the picture?

  5. That person seems to be seeking ’15 mins. of fame’…..but…do we want to control free speech…..do we really want laws and politicians telling us what we are allowed to say out loud and what we cannot?…..That would worry me….
    I agree with Brekkie’s post….

  6. I can’t believe all the criticism being directed at Q & A today. So a person with radical views was allowed to ask a question on Live TV and then snuck in a statement that we all disagree with. News and Current Affairs are always airing peoples extremist views.

    2. Strange as it may seem, we do actually still have “live” TV. Why should it be edited out? I thank ABC for reminding us that there are “Australians” like this is our community.

      1. No that’s sbs,
        I wasn’t saying they supported it just that they should never of had him on, and just proves abc has agendas, abc and sbs shoud be pro australia not tearing it down

          1. They could of cut it, or stopped him right away, them letting him go proves they have problems. No show is live, it’s always 15 second delay

        2. The only obnoxious prat was the half arsed fool of a Govt spokesman,freedom of speech that what this govt is trying desperately to shut down II Duce don’t like it

  9. Do something stupid, and you should face the consequences.

    But, in a civilised law-abiding country, the consequences need to be that you face civilised law in a public trial – not the arbitary whims of easily-manipulated public opinion, or secret a ‘ministerial determination’.

    1. C’mon Ted, court trials of this nature are both drawn out and rather expensive. Much cheaper and easier to conduct a poll of people who phone in to call-back radio to determine that someone is guilty and what their punishment should be.

      1. Heck, why a phone poll? Just asking Alan, Steve, & Andrew, who together represent the wide and varied opinion* of ‘real’ Australia, should be enough shouldn’t it?

        (*deliberately left the plural ‘s’ off there…)

  10. ” I had done and said some stupid things…” He certainly hasn’t learnt his lesson. A very angry young man who needs to be watched very carefully.

  11. From the quote given here (which is all I’m going on) that seems to be an opinion on what others might do, not a “call to terrorism”. No point in debate shows without alternative opinions, however non-PC they might be. Indeed the more you let people spout nonsense the more people see it is nonsense.

      1. That is all he said, it wasn’t a “call to terrorism” at all. Tony Jones’ reaction was over the top, he should have treated it like any other opinion/comment.

        1. Personally, I was far more offended by the behaviour of the two politicians. Challenged by some powerful statements about poverty and how it might be addressed (from Hegarty and Tirado), they chose to haggle over the statistics by way of avoiding the issue. It was thoroughly pathetic.

Leave a Reply