CENSORSHIP TODAY BY THE AUSTRALIAN 

whose marketing spin goes like this:-

Welcome to the contest of ideas

Welcome to ideas that encourage debate and provoke change.

Ideas that are scrutinised and dissected.

blah blah 

FFS why did The Australian today ban my reasonable & rational subscriber comment under their feature Australia Day article headed as

EXCLUSIVE 

PM: National Day is a chance to unite

by RICHARD FERGUSON, PAIGE TAYLOR 

01:00 AM JANUARY 26, 2026

At the time of posting my subscriber comment (10am AEST January 26 or 9 hours after publication of the article) there were 372 published comments under this article.  All of them were “anti Albo”.  

All of them reflected a similar attitude to the current Australian PM as that displayed by the Israeli PM (who happens to be a non-Palestinian, being the son of a colonial settler from Poland named Benzion Mileikowsky) 

Today, there seem parallels in Australia with the early 1970s after Gough Whitlam was elected to power.  Back then PM Whitlam was demonized for providing tacit support for the Vietnamese people fighting US imperialism.  He was subsequently sacked by the colonial Governor-General in December 1975, a few months after the fall of Saigon.   

Back then, Australian troops had joined with the American military under the ANZUS alliance in fighting the Viet Cong resistance forces in South Vietnam.   Those forces were supported by the Viet Minh (later North Vietnamese Army) who defeated the French colonial forces during the IndoChina war of 1945-54. 

Back then us young leftists (now conservatives) supported the Viet Cong and were seen as traitors and communists, the worst of the worst in the view of the Murdoch media. 

These days that newspaper, controlled by powerful forces, views supporters of the indigenous Palestinian people in that same light.

I guess my comment was rejected because, following the post-Bondi-massacre and the criminalization of antisemitism, the political stance denoted as “pro Palestine” or “pro justice for Palestine” is deemed to be “hate speech” i.e., “pro terrorism” and “anti Israel” (therefore antisemitic, therefore a thought crime) 

Anyway without further ado, here’s the rejected comment in italics below.  I would be interested to know why it was rejected by a newspaper that claims to encourage debate etc. 

——-

Notice the language and phraseology in this commentary: 

“far-left and far-right plans to hijack January 26 with a variety of anti-Israel, anti national day and anti migrant protests” 

Notice the implicit assumption in this story that all the protesters are bad “extremists” who are all “anti” this & “anti” that. 

Instead the protesters could be portrayed in a more inclusive light,  as good and idealistic Australians who are “pro” this & and “pro” that. 

Here’s a suggested re-phrase

“plans from those all over the political spectrum who wish to focus on our national day to support justice for Palestine, our own indigenous people, and ordinary Australians“

—ooOoo—