Speaker 1: La General, welcome, wait to play.
Speaker 2: Well, good evening and thanks for joining us. I'm James
Speaker 2: Macpherson with Liz Storer and Caleb Bond. Now I know
Speaker 2: it hurts going to the supermarket these days, but a
Speaker 2: woman in the UK claims her life was ruined when
Speaker 2: she went to the supermarket and was hit on the
Speaker 2: head by a cauliflower. Will bring you that story a
Speaker 2: little later, but if you're wondering, she's not in a
Speaker 2: vegetative state, so it's okay.
Speaker 3: Plus, when we look at the papers.
Speaker 4: First, dad joke of the night.
Speaker 3: There you go, it's going to be a great night.
Speaker 3: We've started early.
Speaker 2: When we get to the papers a little later, poker
Speaker 2: machines drastically reduced in numbers, and yet the amount of
Speaker 2: money being lost has not been reduced at all. Plus,
Speaker 2: a Palestinian man who in Gaza hosted members of Hamas
Speaker 2: and other terror organizations at his art gallery given a
Speaker 2: visa to live in Australia, the coalition demanding answers. We'll
Speaker 2: get to all of that a little later, but first.
Speaker 2: A Labor candidate standing in the Queensland election has been
Speaker 2: forced to apologize for tweets criticizing police that she posted
Speaker 2: fourteen years ago. Now, the tweets were pretty bad, but
Speaker 2: should something posted on social media a decade ago disqualify
Speaker 2: someone from public office. Claire Carlin, who's running for the
Speaker 2: seat of Burley on the Gold Coast, posted this tweet
Speaker 2: back in two thousand and nine. She wrote, we don't
Speaker 2: like police because they kick and they punch. Then in
Speaker 2: twenty ten, she in response to someone who tweeted on
Speaker 2: the count of three, say if the police one two three,
Speaker 2: she replied one two three, and then in twenty eleven
Speaker 2: she tweeted f the police. Now she since deleted those tweets,
Speaker 2: but Channel nine will they found them?
Speaker 1: What are your views on the Queensland Police.
Speaker 4: I'm actually just about to go somewhere and I'm not
Speaker 4: able to.
Speaker 3: Talk at the moment.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. Okay, Well, you've seen some of your tweets
Speaker 1: where you've repeatedly tweeted F the police.
Speaker 3: Can you come in on that? If elected, would you
Speaker 3: support the queens and Police?
Speaker 4: Of course I support the Queen's and police.
Speaker 1: Can you explain those tweets?
Speaker 4: I'm not aware of what you're talking about at the moment.
Speaker 1: I'm just about to go and see my mum, if
Speaker 1: I can show you here, I don't know.
Speaker 5: I can't actually read that while I'm there, you.
Speaker 3: Completely stop and have a look. It's that clarsy.
Speaker 1: Is that you.
Speaker 3: All right?
Speaker 2: Before we debate where the decade old tweets should be
Speaker 2: held against a political candidate, I've got to ask you, Caleb,
Speaker 2: as a former chief of staff of a newspaper, does
Speaker 2: she need media training?
Speaker 1: That was so bad? Like, you know, there is nothing
Speaker 1: that can't be fixed by simply acknowledging what is in front,
Speaker 1: usually because people like it when politicians or even would
Speaker 1: be politicians. It's just honest, like, yeah, I'm a human.
Speaker 1: I said something once that I now don't believe anymore.
Speaker 1: Over and done with right, I'm going to go see
Speaker 1: my mom. I'm going to go see my mom. I
Speaker 1: couldn't possibly stop to check the tweets. And then when
Speaker 1: he actually shows something, she goes, oh, I can't believe
Speaker 1: it is this ill. This could not possibly have happened.
Speaker 1: It was the worst way to possibly handle that you
Speaker 1: could ever imagine. She should have just stopped and looked
Speaker 1: at them and gone, yep, that's my Twitter account. I'd
Speaker 1: totally forgotten that I had written him fourteen odd years ago.
Speaker 1: I've since changed my mind. The police are important. Da
Speaker 1: da da da da. Now, whether she's actually changed her mind,
Speaker 1: who knows. One would think that if fourteen years ago
Speaker 1: you thought if the police was a correct thing to say,
Speaker 1: maybe you have a bit of a problem with the coppers,
Speaker 1: but the Labor Party would prefer that you didn't. So
Speaker 1: you have to toe the Labor Party line as to
Speaker 1: the question of whether or not it should count against
Speaker 1: you in this case. It's not that agregious, she said.
Speaker 1: If the police, it probably does indicate where her mind
Speaker 1: lies when it comes to law enforcement, and that's not
Speaker 1: exactly a good look for the Labor Party in Queensland
Speaker 1: at the moment, indeed, knowing the problems they've had with
Speaker 1: youth crime. But in general, I don't like this trawling
Speaker 1: back through people's social media stuff they've said fifteen years
Speaker 1: ago or whatever it is, because fifteen years ago she
Speaker 1: was a much younger woman than she is now and
Speaker 1: she probably said stuff on social media that is stupid,
Speaker 1: no doubt, Like the rest of us, she would have
Speaker 1: posted stuff fifteen years ago that now would be unacceptable.
Speaker 1: Whether we're a joke or just language has changed et cetera.
Speaker 1: And the constant use of this on both sides of
Speaker 1: politics against liberal candidates and Labor candidates and Greens candidates
Speaker 1: and UAP candidates, and on and on it goes I
Speaker 1: find is a bit graduitous at times. Let's fight it
Speaker 1: on what is in front of us right now. As
Speaker 1: opposed to muck Rake.
Speaker 6: I just want to know what were you up to
Speaker 6: in two thousand and nine, ten and eleven, Claire, that
Speaker 6: is so had.
Speaker 4: It in for the cops.
Speaker 6: Hey, that's the question that needs answering. But you're quite
Speaker 6: right in saying, look, and world leaders have done much worse.
Speaker 6: Remember Justin Trudeau, the now Prime Minister of Canada, said
Speaker 6: he actually could remember how many times he'd worn blackface.
Speaker 4: He'd done it so many.
Speaker 6: Times, he was like, to be honest, I can't even
Speaker 6: tell you how many times I did that. Remember our
Speaker 6: former premier here in New South Wales, Dominic Perrote, wore
Speaker 6: a Nazi suit to his own twenty first birthday party,
Speaker 6: So did Prince Harry back in two thousand and five.
Speaker 4: The list goes on.
Speaker 6: Heck jd Vance, who's now Trump's running mate just a
Speaker 6: few years prior, had said he considered Trump to be
Speaker 6: America's hitler. So the question is do you believe people
Speaker 6: can change or not? And of course it does always
Speaker 6: leave the door open for people to wonder have you
Speaker 6: really changed or are you now just saying and doing
Speaker 6: the politically correct thing, apologizing, etc.
Speaker 4: But I think that one thing we can agree on.
Speaker 6: Is that people decades prior, in this case, fourteen years
Speaker 6: prior to her running for parliament. I'm sure fourteen years
Speaker 6: ago she never thought that she would run for parliament.
Speaker 6: A lot of these people aren't that way minded, and
Speaker 6: she said herself, she's not a career politician type person.
Speaker 6: A lot of them wouldn't have dreamt that they would
Speaker 6: end up where they are now in their current lives
Speaker 6: and have to hang their head in Shane and.
Speaker 4: Give these apologies.
Speaker 6: But you're quite right and saying the biggest mistake is
Speaker 6: not owning it, as if she did not know the
Speaker 6: tweets that that Channel nine reporter was referring to at
Speaker 6: the time.
Speaker 2: Far be it from me to agree with Shannon Fentaman,
Speaker 2: the Women's Minister and Health Minister in Queensland. But she
Speaker 2: made the point and it was well made, that this
Speaker 2: is a reason why a lot of people are reluctant
Speaker 2: to go into politics because they know this sort of
Speaker 2: thing will happen in the media. They reported quote prior
Speaker 2: to the scandal, she'd been strongly regarded by Labian prior
Speaker 2: to the scandal. By the scandal, they mean that bit
Speaker 2: of news footage which probably would not have been a
Speaker 2: scandal had she done what you said and just stood
Speaker 2: there owned it, taken the medicine and moved on. But
Speaker 2: the Queensland the Gold Coast Police Superintendent Pete A. Miles,
Speaker 2: he said he understood that miss Carlin had better relationships
Speaker 2: with police now, and he pointed out that if you're
Speaker 2: looking for someone perfect to go into politics, maybe you
Speaker 2: vote for Jesus at the next election.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I loved that line. Is life.
Speaker 6: From my records, the only perfect person to have walked
Speaker 6: this earth was Jesus, and that was over two thousand
Speaker 6: years ago. But I also think that Claire knows she's
Speaker 6: got Buckley's chance of winning this seat.
Speaker 4: It really doesn't look likely.
Speaker 6: It is a closely held seat, but given how on
Speaker 6: the nose Labor is at the moment, that woman is.
Speaker 4: Probably just like you know what, this is not worth the.
Speaker 6: Mud flinging I just want to run away from this reporter.
Speaker 6: It's unlikely I'll even end up being the member for Burley.
Speaker 1: I do worry though, about the idea that we'd end
Speaker 1: up with automatons essentially as politicians, people have never committed
Speaker 1: any kind of sin in their life. I mean, if
Speaker 1: you want really boring people running the country, I can understand,
Speaker 1: because oh, they're not going to put a foot wrong
Speaker 1: or something. But the reality is that politicians or would
Speaker 1: be politicians are people just like you and me, and
Speaker 1: quite often we go, oh my god, these people they
Speaker 1: speak in a now the language that we can't understand.
Speaker 1: And then you have people who do speak in languages
Speaker 1: that we can understand and who make mistakes like the
Speaker 1: rest of us, and we go, no, how dare they
Speaker 1: They can't possibly do that. Yes, it was a small offense,
Speaker 1: but really it's not all that egregious. What is egregious, though,
Speaker 1: is the misinformation and disinformation build that the federal government
Speaker 1: is currently trying to push. Now we know what this means.
Speaker 1: It means Akma, the Communications and Media Authority would be
Speaker 1: given the power to call in people to explain what
Speaker 1: has been posted on social media. Essentially, they set up
Speaker 1: a Ministry of truth that says, well, this is misinformation
Speaker 1: or this is disinformation. It should be banned from social media.
Speaker 1: You shouldn't be able to post it. Social media companies
Speaker 1: should be sanctioned for what they allow you to put online.
Speaker 1: And who decides what is misinformation or disinformation? Government arm.
Speaker 1: So the government is essentially deciding what is true. You
Speaker 1: can see where it all ends up. Well, the Coalition
Speaker 1: is now saying that if someone who is affiliated with
Speaker 1: a social media company, and what exactly affiliation is we
Speaker 1: don't quite know. Is it someone who is a staff
Speaker 1: member it's say a Facebook or an x or is
Speaker 1: it someone who is paid by a social media platform.
Speaker 1: For instance, on YouTube, a lot of people derive advertising
Speaker 1: revenue from what they post the videos they post, so
Speaker 1: they are technically affiliated with that business. They would be
Speaker 1: able to be jailed for a year if they refuse
Speaker 1: to cooperate with a public inquiry called by the Communications Minister. Now, look,
Speaker 1: if you post something on social media or you work
Speaker 1: at a social media company and then the government comes
Speaker 1: up with some sort of trumped up public inquiry into
Speaker 1: what is being posted, you can understand. While you'd say, well, no,
Speaker 1: that's just free speech. We don't want to operate here,
Speaker 1: but if you don't show up, a year in jail potentially,
Speaker 1: according to the Coalition. Media lawyer Justin Quill has called
Speaker 1: this out and exactly how chilling it is for free speech.
Speaker 7: Is absolutely an undermining of free speech on so many
Speaker 7: different levels, and it's so concerning, so big but brotherish
Speaker 7: that we have this definition of misinformation, for example, reasonably
Speaker 7: verifiable as false, misleading or deceptive, reasonably verifiable according to
Speaker 7: who the government. And that's ultimately the main issue that
Speaker 7: I see here is that the government or a government
Speaker 7: agency determine what is reasonably verifiable is false, misleading or deceptive.
Speaker 7: Some things might seem deceptive to the government but are
Speaker 7: actually in reality true. So it's greatly concerning to me.
Speaker 1: Spot on. A National Senator, Bridget McKinsey said at SEAPAC
Speaker 1: on the weekend that if the Coalition wins the next election,
Speaker 1: they would repeal this piece of legislation should it be passed.
Speaker 8: We're voting down this very appalling bad bill and we're
Speaker 8: proud to do so.
Speaker 3: We hope it doesn't get.
Speaker 8: Up with the support of the Greens, but it will
Speaker 8: be something we'll be getting rid of in a coalition
Speaker 8: government under your reviewment, Well, I would be yes, absolutely,
Speaker 8: we have to do everything we can. But that's why
Speaker 8: you need to vote coalition in the Senate too.
Speaker 1: This apparently comes under section two h two of this bill,
Speaker 1: which the government says would not apply to individuals who
Speaker 1: post on social media. If you're just Joe Bloggs who
Speaker 1: posts something that is supposedly misinformation or disinformation, you couldn't
Speaker 1: be jailed for not showing up to an inquiry. But
Speaker 1: presumably someone else who is connected to the social media
Speaker 1: outfit itself could be jailed for a year for not
Speaker 1: showing up to speak on your behalf. The whole thing
Speaker 1: just seems ridiculous.
Speaker 2: So why would you, if you were a social media
Speaker 2: organization not just say, you know what, let's just suppress
Speaker 2: Caleb's tweet. Let's just suspend Caleb for a couple of
Speaker 2: months just to keep the government happy, rather than have
Speaker 2: an investigation a hearing.
Speaker 3: We've got to have people now show up.
Speaker 2: If we don't cooperate, we risk jail easier just not
Speaker 2: to allow your tweet to go viral than to go
Speaker 2: through the rigoramole that the government is putting on.
Speaker 3: That's really what they're trying to do, right.
Speaker 6: Absolutely, they're outsourcing the censorship, saying we will make you
Speaker 6: liable for what other people say on your platform, which
Speaker 6: I just think is utter nonsense. Also, keep in mind
Speaker 6: these platforms have hundreds of millions of users, especially if
Speaker 6: you're talking about a platform like x Facebook. These are
Speaker 6: bahamous in the social media world. Can you imagine how
Speaker 6: many hearings, even in the space of a week or
Speaker 6: a month ATMA then could call you guys, you guys
Speaker 6: are in trouble for this one. You guys are in
Speaker 6: trouble for that one. They'd be tied up for years
Speaker 6: on end. I don't even know how our courts would
Speaker 6: be able to process it. These processes as they stand
Speaker 6: make absolutely no sense whatsoever. And something to keep in
Speaker 6: mind is if it's the social media companies that being
Speaker 6: held liable, most of these companies aren't based in Australia.
Speaker 4: Most of them are based in America.
Speaker 6: And while America is our friend and very good ally,
Speaker 6: who among us likes the idea of Americans deciding what
Speaker 6: Australians can and can't say on our social media platforms.
Speaker 4: And then, of.
Speaker 6: Course there's the case of TikTok, which is Chinese owned,
Speaker 6: which no doubt already censors US. But you're basically now
Speaker 6: these social media platforms would be required by our own
Speaker 6: government by law to do the censorship for them.
Speaker 4: And just as we.
Speaker 6: Discover nearly every time a government gets hit with one of.
Speaker 4: These, whether it's the story we were talking about last
Speaker 4: night where they spent.
Speaker 6: Three hundred and sixty thousand dollars relocating an office only
Speaker 6: to move it back in two years later, they always
Speaker 6: blame the bureaucrat. So government loves outsourcing, and in that
Speaker 6: case it was PwC. We followed PWC's advice. We paid
Speaker 6: for all the consultancies. This is exactly what would occur
Speaker 6: on mass if they successfully made these platforms liable, because
Speaker 6: then if anyone called out the censorship, they could just.
Speaker 4: Be like, well, it was the platform. It was the platform.
Speaker 4: We wouldn't have even condoned that censorship. Arguably they'd be
Speaker 4: able to make that argument.
Speaker 2: I was hardened to hear Bridget mackenzie talking to Kredlin
Speaker 2: earlier tonight say the Coalition would vote against this misinformation bill.
Speaker 2: I'm just wondering if they've removed from their own Liberal
Speaker 2: Party website their support for AKMA being given these exact.
Speaker 6: Powers exactly exactly, which that was the story we brought
Speaker 6: to you last week. The coalition is coming out quite
Speaker 6: strongly saying we will oppose this. You heard Bridget mackenzie
Speaker 6: say there that if it got up, a coalition government
Speaker 6: would actually.
Speaker 4: Go so far as to repeal it.
Speaker 6: However, if you go to a site on the federal
Speaker 6: Liberal Party's website, they've got an entire page dedicated to
Speaker 6: fake news and what they as a coalition intend to
Speaker 6: do to combat it. Let's not forget this Combating Misinformation
Speaker 6: Disinformation Bill was the brainchild of the former Liberal government.
Speaker 6: So you can bet your bottom dollar in some way,
Speaker 6: shape or form they do intend to follow through, not
Speaker 6: the bill that Labor currently has before them. God forbid
Speaker 6: it gets up, but certainly we would see something similar
Speaker 6: from a liberal government, and I think they're being quite
Speaker 6: dishonest about that.
Speaker 1: In my opinion, it's just unprecedented in the way it
Speaker 1: controls speech. Right. I think there is a legitimate art
Speaker 1: argument for social media platforms being held accountable for, say,
Speaker 1: defamatory content that is posted on their platforms. In the
Speaker 1: same way that a newspaper or a TV channel can
Speaker 1: be held accountable for defamatory content that is posted on
Speaker 1: their platforms. You know that you can come and soon
Speaker 1: me for what I've said, But the channel also gets
Speaker 1: dragged into that case. And I don't see why that
Speaker 1: shouldn't also apply to Facebook, Twitter and whatever else. But
Speaker 1: what they're saying here is that we will go beyond
Speaker 1: what is just untrue and provable in a court of
Speaker 1: law and give it to a quasi government arm form
Speaker 1: of AKMA and let them decide what is and isn't
Speaker 1: done true. Without the checks and balances of a courtroom,
Speaker 1: it's a completely different system and chilling for freespool.
Speaker 2: Well as justin Quill there defined misinformation in the bill
Speaker 2: anything reasonably verifiable as false. Well, if you post something
Speaker 2: that's reason verifiable is well, that's not true. Why do
Speaker 2: we need ACMA to be able to launch a hearing
Speaker 2: an investigation? Shouldn't we leave it to eligent people to realize?
Speaker 2: That doesn't really make sense. I think Liz is having
Speaker 2: us on there. We don't need a government body to
Speaker 2: shut you down.
Speaker 6: What you just described is free speech manifest and our
Speaker 6: fellow peoples can decide whether we're full of it or
Speaker 6: whether we're telling the truth. To the Federal Parliament now
Speaker 6: where Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke is under pressure to
Speaker 6: cancel the visa of a US based academic who is
Speaker 6: granted a visa to fly into Australia to stand in
Speaker 6: Southeast Sydney yesterday attending a rally on the anniversary of
Speaker 6: October seven, to say this, I want to start in
Speaker 6: a light note.
Speaker 1: I'm feeling in a good mood today.
Speaker 9: Today is not fully a day of mourning in many respects,
Speaker 9: today is also a day that marks considerable celebration, considerable progress.
Speaker 6: The Opposition is now rightly asking how the heck did
Speaker 6: this guy get a visa and would have us believe
Speaker 6: that they do care very deeply about social cohesion at
Speaker 6: a time of such unheaval, upheaval which we see on
Speaker 6: our streets on the weekly, almost the daily at the
Speaker 6: moment here in Australia, and yet seemed to think it
Speaker 6: was of no consequence whatsoever that this US academic, who
Speaker 6: if you take a look at his social media record,
Speaker 6: you know exactly where he stands on this issue, to
Speaker 6: then be a guest speaker at a rally in Southeast
Speaker 6: Sydney to say that this was a day of celebration,
Speaker 6: this was a day of progress. This government is once
Speaker 6: again just laughing in our faces, saying one thing, or
Speaker 6: trying to be seen as sitting on the fence. And
Speaker 6: yet this guy can come into our country on such
Speaker 6: a sacred day and incredible day of mourning for the
Speaker 6: Jewish people and are to these disgusting works and Burkes's
Speaker 6: Tony Burks's as soon as he heard the comments, he
Speaker 6: contacted his department and said, he's this man on a
Speaker 6: visa And then the department came back and said, yes,
Speaker 6: he is on a visa.
Speaker 1: So Tony Burke then said to the department, can you
Speaker 1: compile a brief for me on this man?
Speaker 4: So do we need a breath?
Speaker 1: Whether or not do we really need a breath? Surely
Speaker 1: on the spot he should have just said this man
Speaker 1: is not welcome in this country. I mean, if that
Speaker 1: is not a wark cup case of someone who ought
Speaker 1: to be deported for turning up on October the seventh
Speaker 1: and saying that the day of a terror attack, the
Speaker 1: one year anniversary of a terror attack, was a day
Speaker 1: of celebration. He is clearly anti West. He is willing
Speaker 1: the death of Jewish people and people in the Western world.
Speaker 1: How is he not someone who should have been deported
Speaker 1: last night?
Speaker 2: I know it was a different government, but do you
Speaker 2: remember when Novak Dodokovich was not allowed into the country
Speaker 2: because he was going to create mayhem if he was
Speaker 2: allowed him because he didn't want to have the vaccine.
Speaker 2: And yet we get this joker who's allowed to come in.
Speaker 2: He's allowed to say that kind of stuff. And Tony
Speaker 2: Burke will get advice, and it's no doubt he will
Speaker 2: follow eventually, and if he doesn't do anything in his criticized,
Speaker 2: he'll say, well, I was just following advice. It was
Speaker 2: interesting the Lebanese Muslim Association, who are part of that
Speaker 2: gathering in Lakemba, they have disassociated themselves from it, saying
Speaker 2: that they are all about peace and unity. And I
Speaker 2: was thinking, you know, if on October seven you were
Speaker 2: all about peace and unity, wouldn't you go along to
Speaker 2: some of the israel memorials yesterday and you would stand
Speaker 2: with the Jewish people and say we are Muslims, you
Speaker 2: are Jews, we are Arabs, you are Israelis. But today
Speaker 2: we recognize today have great pain for you. We've got
Speaker 2: our own pain, but today it's your pain. We're going
Speaker 2: to stand beside you. That's what you do, rather than
Speaker 2: go to an event like this, stand there applauding and
Speaker 2: then later when it comes out in the media say.
Speaker 3: Oh, we distance ourselves from it.
Speaker 2: The other irony hero hypocrisy from the government is they
Speaker 2: allow people like this in but they also allow events
Speaker 2: like yesterday to be run by Hesbatteria, which have as
Speaker 2: their goal a glais global Islamic caliphate, firstly the Muslim
Speaker 2: nations and then in non Muslim nations by invitation or
Speaker 2: by jihad, and they are not registered as a terror group,
Speaker 2: despite the fact Germany and numbers of Muslim nations recognize
Speaker 2: has Butteria as a terrorist group, and for some reason
Speaker 2: we don't regard them like Australia and we allow them
Speaker 2: to put on events.
Speaker 6: This does my head in because something we Westerners don't
Speaker 6: seem to appreciate is that these guys are just being themselves.
Speaker 4: I mean, we've imported.
Speaker 6: Way too many of them now to really take issue
Speaker 6: with it, which is what we constantly talk about with
Speaker 6: this federal government. When you've got about one hundred thousand
Speaker 6: Jews in Australia versus over a million Muslims whose vote
Speaker 6: are you're going to be shilling for. It's not hard math,
Speaker 6: but we have allowed a very different culture to take
Speaker 6: root here in Australia. It's been encouraged, it's been celebrated.
Speaker 6: Everyone who doesn't agree with it has just been told,
Speaker 6: celebrate diversity, everyone, strength and diversity.
Speaker 4: This is cultural enrichment.
Speaker 6: And then something like October seven happens and it makes
Speaker 6: very clear the chasm between quite a large percentage of
Speaker 6: our population and those of us who do uphold Western
Speaker 6: values who do not celebrate this and find it absolutely abhorrent.
Speaker 6: But the onus is on the government that has for
Speaker 6: years just spewed this gospel that multiculturalism is the best
Speaker 6: thing since SLF spread and there's absolutely no problem with it.
Speaker 6: I've always said a multi ethnic society, absolutely multicultural cannot work,
Speaker 6: especially when my culture is diametrically.
Speaker 4: Opposed to many of the values that you're willing to
Speaker 4: die for.
Speaker 2: Well, it's been a bit negative tonight, but Liza, I
Speaker 2: have good news for you. The Australian authorities have finally
Speaker 2: decided to take action and make sure that we have
Speaker 2: social cohesion. No, they're not arresting an imam in Western
Speaker 2: Sydney calling for jhad, or a sheikh describing October seven
Speaker 2: as a day of celebration, or mobs shouting anti Israeli
Speaker 2: chants and waving terrorist flags.
Speaker 3: Get out.
Speaker 2: We're got to look at this headline. Authorities are really
Speaker 2: taking action. Elderly woman to face court after allegedly making
Speaker 2: harassing phone calls to a Sydney mosque.
Speaker 3: Police have gone and arrested.
Speaker 2: And charged an eighty two year old grandmother for making
Speaker 2: harassing phone calls to a local mosque in Sydney. And
Speaker 2: how many phone calls do you ask has she made?
Speaker 2: Let me just check one. She's made two phone calls
Speaker 2: to a local mosque and she will appear apparently in court.
Speaker 2: According to officers, two offensive phone calls were made to
Speaker 2: the mosque on Tuesday October first and Friday October fourth.
Speaker 2: Following investigations, police attended the home of said eighty two
Speaker 2: year old woman in five Dock, Sydney, about nine to
Speaker 2: fifty am on Saturday. The woman was ish. Can you
Speaker 2: imagine this woman nine to fifty am on a Saturday,
Speaker 2: she gets a.
Speaker 3: Knock on the door. Just eighty two year old grandmother.
Speaker 2: It's they've issued her with a future court attendance notice
Speaker 2: for the offense of using carriage service to menace, harass,
Speaker 2: and offend.
Speaker 6: This is just incredible because what it looks like here
Speaker 6: is the Islamist candition out.
Speaker 4: But they can't take it. I mean, we have to
Speaker 4: listen to their hate preachers. We have to listen to
Speaker 4: guys like we just.
Speaker 6: Showed you at the rally on October, the anniversary of
Speaker 6: October seven. We have to listen to any number of
Speaker 6: the examples that have made headlines in recent months. And indeed,
Speaker 6: since October seven last year, no one gets a slap.
Speaker 4: On the wrist.
Speaker 6: It's all good, it's all hunky dory. An eighty two
Speaker 6: year old grandma makes two calls to a mosque and
Speaker 6: she's given a court order.
Speaker 1: Mean, this line in sand. They've drawn a line in
Speaker 1: the sand, and they've decided, yet bidly found some hate
Speaker 1: speech that we can go after.
Speaker 3: What she's We don't know what she said.
Speaker 1: Have her day and caught on note the twenty seventh,
Speaker 1: when we will find out. Oh, we're all but you
Speaker 1: would imagine if she'd made any kind of threat she
Speaker 1: would have been charged with such an offense. She's been
Speaker 1: charged with using a telecommunication service to menace harrasses called
Speaker 1: up and you know, said something reasonably offensive, but presumably
Speaker 1: has not made any kind of threat against the mosque.
Speaker 1: So you can wander around the streets of Sydney with
Speaker 1: the hez Balah flag, and you can wander around the
Speaker 1: streets of Sydney with photographs of Nazraala. They're now dead leader.
Speaker 1: They've got one woman who turned herself into police. They
Speaker 1: put a photo to anyone's seen this check she was
Speaker 1: walking around with a he Blah flag. She turned herself in.
Speaker 1: That's all the police have done for people walking around
Speaker 1: the streets of Sydney with literal terror symbols. And some
Speaker 1: old lady calls up a mosque twice and says something
Speaker 1: offensive and she has the cops at her door arresting her. Like,
Speaker 1: does it not prove how ridiculous all of this is.
Speaker 1: Become that at no point has there been any effort
Speaker 1: to combat real hate speech in this country since October
Speaker 1: the seventh last year.
Speaker 2: It's almost like an eighty two year old grandmother is
Speaker 2: an easy target. Well, of course, you know the first
Speaker 2: thing I thought, though a friend of mine passed is
Speaker 2: the church that Scott Morrison attends, right And a couple
Speaker 2: of years ago he was telling me when Scott Morrison
Speaker 2: became Prime Minister, they were getting more than two hundred.
Speaker 3: Calls every day to the church.
Speaker 2: Office, people ringing up with the most vile abuse. They
Speaker 2: had to put on extra staff to handle all the
Speaker 2: phone calls, and the phone calls were abused. Do you
Speaker 2: know how many people I heard of who were charged
Speaker 2: with menacing and harassing that church?
Speaker 3: Zero? Not a single person. What the first thing I
Speaker 3: thought when I read this story, What a surprise.
Speaker 1: I mean, seriously, you think about the use of police
Speaker 1: resources at the moment, the speech that we have seen
Speaker 1: over the last year, the speech that we saw yesterday,
Speaker 1: and an eighty year old woman in her eighties who
Speaker 1: calls up a mosque is the one that they go after. Please,
Speaker 1: it is pathetic. While we are on matters of the
Speaker 1: war in and around Israel, the US is giving a
Speaker 1: shedload of money to Lebanon, and Peter Doucy from Fox
Speaker 1: News put it out quite rightly in a press conference
Speaker 1: with Caring John Pierre Joe Biden. Of course, his spin
Speaker 1: doctor asking them, how is it that you've got all
Speaker 1: this money that you can just send immediately to Lebanon,
Speaker 1: But we've got hurricanes going on right now in the US,
Speaker 1: and apparently you need to recall Congress to get them
Speaker 1: to approve money to be given to Americans or KJP
Speaker 1: took it really well and pulled out that old, hoary,
Speaker 1: old chestnut misinformation, disinformation.
Speaker 9: The administration has money to send to Labana without Congress
Speaker 9: coming back. The Congress does have to come back to
Speaker 9: approve money to send to people in North Carolina?
Speaker 3: Do I have that rate?
Speaker 5: Here's what I'm going to be very clear about. The
Speaker 5: president and Vice president and has had a robust hale
Speaker 5: of government response to this, But instead people want to
Speaker 5: do disinformation, misinformation, which is dangerous, Which is dangerous.
Speaker 9: If he's got money for people in Lebanon right now
Speaker 9: without Commerce having to come back, what does it say
Speaker 9: about as values there's not enough money right now.
Speaker 1: For people in North Carolina. Here's that's not misinformation.
Speaker 5: Well, no, that is your whole your whole premise of
Speaker 5: the question is misinformation, sir?
Speaker 1: Is it? I mean she couldn't explain how it was
Speaker 1: one hundred and fifty seven million US dollars get sent
Speaker 1: in a directly to Lebanon, but they can't scrounge up
Speaker 1: the money without approval to give to people in the US. Again,
Speaker 1: they use this misinformation disinformation line as though it's some
Speaker 1: kind of shot all we got you, Now, you were
Speaker 1: making it up. Well, you're not making it up, You're
Speaker 1: simply stating a fact. You see this from the Biden administration,
Speaker 1: you see it from the Albanesi government here all over
Speaker 1: the WIST. Now, this is continually used as a lion
Speaker 1: to somehow discredit what someone has said without actually proving
Speaker 1: that what they have said is wrong.
Speaker 2: Misinformation is the new racist right to say racist, which
Speaker 2: meant I don't have to answer anything you've just said.
Speaker 2: I don't have to engage, I don't have to come
Speaker 2: up with an argument. I just dismiss you as a racist,
Speaker 2: and presumably with that I win. Well, misinformation is the
Speaker 2: new form of racist where I just dismiss you immediately,
Speaker 2: I don't bother engaging with your argument misinformation, I turn
Speaker 2: my back and I win the argument.
Speaker 6: Precisely, she started out by saying here's what I'm going.
Speaker 4: To be real clear about, and proceeded.
Speaker 6: Not to debunk it that it said, it is unquestionably
Speaker 6: true that you have literally just handed Lebanon an extra
Speaker 6: on top of already foreign aid to Lebanon one hundred
Speaker 6: and fifty seven million dollars. Meanwhile, the six states that
Speaker 6: have been ravaged by Hurricane Helene, the worst hurricane mainland
Speaker 6: America seen in fifty years, are going begging and FEMA,
Speaker 6: the government department responsible for looking after people in the
Speaker 6: midst of such natural disasters, well they've said we don't
Speaker 6: have enough money to last the season, referring to the
Speaker 6: hurricane season. So Doocey's got a perfectly reasonable question.
Speaker 4: In fact, he was far nicer than I would have been.
Speaker 6: I would have brought up the tens of billions of
Speaker 6: dollars they've spent on foreign aid this year alone.
Speaker 4: Much less last year.
Speaker 6: And again, massive disaster breaks out affecting six states, and
Speaker 6: they're up in arms and everyone on the ground. If
Speaker 6: you're on social media, you must have seen some of this.
Speaker 6: Those citizens who do have access to the internet are
Speaker 6: videoing the carnage and how frustrating it is trying to
Speaker 6: get a single dollar out of FEMA. The very idea
Speaker 6: that you have to log on to get your seven
Speaker 6: hundred and fifty.
Speaker 4: Dollars when many areas.
Speaker 6: Don't even have access to the internet is simply laughable.
Speaker 4: So she can't.
Speaker 6: Answer such a basic question. The funds are there when
Speaker 6: you want it for a cause that you clearly care about,
Speaker 6: But when America is in turmoil, it seems like you
Speaker 6: just have nowhere to go and have no idea what's
Speaker 6: going on.
Speaker 2: And that clip we just played illustrates in thirty seconds
Speaker 2: why our government should never be allowed to introduce a
Speaker 2: misinformation bill exactly because when being quizzed by a journalist
Speaker 2: and the White House spokesperson doesn't like the way this
Speaker 2: questioning is going misinformation, which just proves the government will
Speaker 2: call misinformation anything that makes them uncomfortable.
Speaker 3: They should never have this power.
Speaker 1: Correct, and not to mention like the teams of billions,
Speaker 1: hundreds of billions of dollars that the US has given
Speaker 1: to Iran under the Biden administration, which Iran then users
Speaker 1: gives to people like Hezbala.
Speaker 3: And misinformation, misinformation, misinformation.
Speaker 4: Disinformation, Caleb, how.
Speaker 1: Could you be responded from evidence a little bit of
Speaker 1: good news out of the un I know, I can't
Speaker 1: believe I'm saying I cannot.
Speaker 3: Tell to buy a lot of ticket, but it.
Speaker 1: Is actually if you've got a lot of ticket in
Speaker 1: the Oslos and Art. I think it was eight million dollars.
Speaker 1: I'll have to check with my girlfriend when I get
Speaker 1: home whether I won't be working tomorrow because we won
Speaker 1: the a.
Speaker 3: You're just doing this for the money. I thought you
Speaker 3: did it because you loved.
Speaker 1: I cannot shy. I will be back tomorrow.
Speaker 3: Even if I will thank God for the dollars.
Speaker 1: Because I love talking to you every night here on
Speaker 1: the late debate. But back to the good news. At
Speaker 1: the UN, there's Special Rapporteur on Gender Equality has come
Speaker 1: back with a report that will be given to the
Speaker 1: General Assembly of the UN that says women's sport should
Speaker 1: be exclusively for females. I know, extraordinary, isn't it? What
Speaker 1: an idea. It is extraordinary though that this comes from
Speaker 1: the UN. She says the special report tour rem Al Salem,
Speaker 1: that yes, women's sport should be exclusively for women. And
Speaker 1: she has a very simple way of resolving the problems
Speaker 1: that we see, particularly that one, of course, we saw
Speaker 1: at the Olympics when it came to women's boxing, where
Speaker 1: there were two participants who had previously been banned from
Speaker 1: competing in international boxing tournaments because they'd undertaken a genetic
Speaker 1: test that apparently showed that they had male chromosomes. She says, groundbreaking.
Speaker 1: I know, in cases where the sex of an athlete
Speaker 1: is unknown or uncertain, a dignified, swift, non invasive, and
Speaker 1: accurate sex screening methods such as a check swab, or,
Speaker 1: where necessary for exceptional reasons, genetic testing should be applied
Speaker 1: to confirm the athlete sex, which is exactly what the
Speaker 1: IOC refused to do at the Olympics this year. She says,
Speaker 1: according to information received by the thirtieth of March twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four, over six hundred female athletes in more than
Speaker 1: four hundred competitions have lost more than eight hundred and
Speaker 1: ninety medals in twenty nine different sports. If even the
Speaker 1: UN's appointed person on Gender equality can now admit unusual
Speaker 1: for the UN. If even she can now admit that
Speaker 1: women's sport should only be for women, surely the rest
Speaker 1: of the world and sporting bodies ought to follow.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry, I'm just laughing, he said.
Speaker 2: If even the UN can admit biological mention tells everything
Speaker 2: it is.
Speaker 10: One version in the ginormous bureaucratic nightmare that is that overblown.
Speaker 4: Just most of us were to.
Speaker 6: Get rid of the un off the face of the
Speaker 6: earth if we could tomorrow.
Speaker 3: I'm a believer again after this, I'm back.
Speaker 6: On like this is one person saying one shred of
Speaker 6: common sense, and Max like, take my money, I'm a believer.
Speaker 2: They actually called this an explosive report, which shows you
Speaker 2: just how bad Western cultures becomes.
Speaker 4: As explosive she is.
Speaker 2: She said some other things though that I mean, we've
Speaker 2: been saying it for ages, but now the United Nations
Speaker 2: are saying it. She said that allowing biological men to
Speaker 2: compete in women's sport made locker rooms unsafe. She said,
Speaker 2: sexual harassment, assault, voyeurism, or major problems when you start
Speaker 2: allowing men to use female locker rooms. She said that
Speaker 2: injuries were major concerns, broken bones, concussions, fractured skulls. And
Speaker 2: that wasn't from boxing, that was from basketball, volleyball, and soccer.
Speaker 2: She said, testosterone levels. You know we're always told, well,
Speaker 2: we're monitoring testosterone levels, makes zero difference to fairness. And finally,
Speaker 2: she said, and this I thought was very important, that
Speaker 2: it's very rare that women are actually consulted about whether
Speaker 2: or not they would like biological males competing, and if
Speaker 2: they dare to voice an opinion, they're typically ostracized or
Speaker 2: pushed aside, which is highly unfair. The reason, of course,
Speaker 2: that this un report will not go very far is
Speaker 2: if it's true that biological men shouldn't be playing room's sport,
Speaker 2: it's also true that sex is not interchangeable, which makes
Speaker 2: Queensland laws and Victorian laws and soon new South Wales
Speaker 2: laws allow you to change your birth certificate nonsensical and
Speaker 2: we can't ever admit that. So they can't give any
Speaker 2: ground on this sporting issue. It will continue because otherwise
Speaker 2: the whole thing falls apart.
Speaker 4: Right sadly true.
Speaker 6: Just quickly, before we go to a break, a question
Speaker 6: that does affect the state of the nation. Is it
Speaker 6: okay to save a car parking spot. I'm not talking
Speaker 6: about with your car. I'm talking about those annoying people
Speaker 6: that you see after you've driven around for the better
Speaker 6: part of twenty minutes trying to find a park and
Speaker 6: they're standing in one saving one for their friend. This
Speaker 6: grace the headlines when it was brought to the attention
Speaker 6: of the media. This woman here in a popular spot
Speaker 6: in the Gold Coast doing just that. It just it
Speaker 6: gets your goat, doesn't it.
Speaker 2: No, This is why I take kids to the beach,
Speaker 2: so I can push them out of the car.
Speaker 3: Stand in that spot while I go around the floor
Speaker 3: and as.
Speaker 4: A witch's hat until I'm ready to pull in.
Speaker 3: If you do it for thirty seconds, I think it's
Speaker 3: all right.
Speaker 4: Any longer than that, I think it's only fair.
Speaker 3: Stand there for like five mine.
Speaker 6: Who gets there in their car that is rightly their
Speaker 6: car parking spot.
Speaker 1: Only succeeds when everyone plays by the rule. What you
Speaker 1: have there is someone subverting the rules. If you want
Speaker 1: to do that, go to some other country on the
Speaker 1: other side of the world. We're civil here, ferst in
Speaker 1: this risk.
Speaker 2: If my son was standing there, you're just running down.
Speaker 6: Lay on the can.
Speaker 2: We're going to go to a break. When we come back,
Speaker 2: we look at what's making news in the papers tomorrow,
Speaker 2: including reducing the number of poker machines. Doesn't seem to
Speaker 2: reduce the amount of money being lost by gamblers.
Speaker 3: That's coming up in a moment. Okay, welcome back.
Speaker 2: Let's look at what's making news tomorrow, Liz, you've got
Speaker 2: the Canberra Times with a gambling story.
Speaker 4: We do.
Speaker 6: Indeed, Pokey's cuts, just a scratch, cuts to the number
Speaker 6: of Pokemish machines in the Act have not reduced money
Speaker 6: loss to the machines, meaning the policy has not reduced
Speaker 6: problem gambling in the capital. A new paper has found, well, well,
Speaker 6: well there you go. How many times do we hear
Speaker 6: where the worst country when it comes to gambling. We've
Speaker 6: got the most gambling loss per capita than any other
Speaker 6: country in the world. And how many times do we
Speaker 6: hear pokeys are the main problem. They're incredibly addictive. We've
Speaker 6: just got to get.
Speaker 4: Rid of these.
Speaker 6: I'm not convinced government wants to get rid of them
Speaker 6: at all because the tax revenue.
Speaker 4: Is glorious for them.
Speaker 6: So these guys actually did it in the Act, and
Speaker 6: now we learn it makes zero difference, zero difference.
Speaker 1: What a surprise that if you are a gambling addict
Speaker 1: who is addicted to the Pokey's that it doesn't particularly
Speaker 1: matter whether you have to travel another five kilometers to
Speaker 1: go to a poker machine. You'll find your way to
Speaker 1: a poker machine. Oh, we're going to have few of
Speaker 1: them as if people were just go, oh god, I
Speaker 1: just can't go the extra distance to it pub So.
Speaker 2: They reduced the number from five thy twenty two to
Speaker 2: three thousand, six hundred. That's a big reduction, But they're
Speaker 2: saying in order to reduce the amount of money being gambled,
Speaker 2: that have to reduce it not from five thousand to
Speaker 2: three and a half, but from five thousand to two thousand,
Speaker 2: and then finally it would start to make a difference,
Speaker 2: I guess, because you couldn't get on one that'll be occupied.
Speaker 6: Based on this research, it just sounds like if you
Speaker 6: reduced it to two thousand.
Speaker 4: There'd be lines out the door waiting.
Speaker 6: For your poking machine, and if anything, it would become
Speaker 6: worse because they'd be more reticent to leave their poking
Speaker 6: machine seat, knowing, heck, when somebody else is in here,
Speaker 6: I'm not going to be able to get mine.
Speaker 1: Can I just point out as well, if we can
Speaker 1: get in front of the Canberra Times back up again,
Speaker 1: so advertisement all the front of the paper, which has
Speaker 1: to be like the most canbra ad you've ever seen
Speaker 1: in your life. Coalition has public service waste in sight,
Speaker 1: as though that's.
Speaker 3: A bad they're going to cut waste. I'm not voting
Speaker 3: for that.
Speaker 1: How dare they?
Speaker 2: Let's go to the front page of tomorrow's Daily Telling.
Speaker 2: Just before we get to the main story. There, just
Speaker 2: on the bottom left hand corner, Golden Tonsils signing off,
Speaker 2: John Laws calls time on his radio career, seventy one
Speaker 2: years on air. What an amazing, amazing achievement, so nine
Speaker 2: years old. Well done to John Laws.
Speaker 3: Very good. All right?
Speaker 2: The main story and Exclusive Coalition demands to know why
Speaker 2: this man was let in?
Speaker 3: Who vetted his visa? Is the question?
Speaker 2: A Palestinian man who hosted political members of Hamas and
Speaker 2: other terror groups at his art studio in Gaza was
Speaker 2: granted a visa to Australia. Visual artist Fayes El Hasani,
Speaker 2: who had sons and brothers in Middle Eastern terror groups,
Speaker 2: moved here in July. And now the federal opposition of
Speaker 2: demanding to know how and why he was let in.
Speaker 2: Now he's seventy two years old. Ten of his family
Speaker 2: members were reportedly killed in Gaza before he came to Australia.
Speaker 2: But it's a good question, and now he's here, it's
Speaker 2: apparently been revealed he's got terror links. And remember the
Speaker 2: government promised us Asio would do thorough security checks, only
Speaker 2: to later advise us that visas were granted, and many
Speaker 2: of these Palestinians arrived in the country before Asio had
Speaker 2: done any security checks.
Speaker 1: It would seem abundantly clear that there are no security
Speaker 1: checks whatsoever, or at least the ones that supposedly are
Speaker 1: there are absolutely rubbish. I mean again, we talked before
Speaker 1: about the bloke who spoke at the rally at the
Speaker 1: Lacens Estina who said that it was a day of celebration.
Speaker 1: October SIVM was a day of celebration. His visa should
Speaker 1: have been canceled on the spot. Here we have a
Speaker 1: case of a guy who hosts people from terror organizations,
Speaker 1: who has family members who are part of terror organizations,
Speaker 1: and he was not denied a visa to come and
Speaker 1: live in the country, not even visit. The checks and
Speaker 1: balances clearly do not exist. And there are thousands of
Speaker 1: peace people who've been allowed into this Palestine since the
Speaker 1: war started a year ago, and where to believe that
Speaker 1: all of them are a okay? I would suggest on
Speaker 1: the basis of this that perhaps they are not, and
Speaker 1: we should be looking much more closely at it.
Speaker 2: When if you had ever had reason to doubt this
Speaker 2: Government's Affairs department never.
Speaker 4: Never dare mis information. And from Caleb Bond over there, I.
Speaker 1: Was just going to say, I totally trust them on
Speaker 1: the definition of misinformation, this information, and I look forward
Speaker 1: to my opportunity to face a public hearing. Let's go
Speaker 1: to the Herald Sun tomorrow where I love this idea.
Speaker 1: The splash is an exclusive. It says Lord Mayor puts
Speaker 1: tax breaks on menu in bid to revive city, bring
Speaker 1: back the long lunch. I have been saying this for
Speaker 1: so long, Lord Mey and Nick Reese has unveiled a
Speaker 1: plan to encourage more workers back into the city by
Speaker 1: pushing for tax breaks for employers who take their staff
Speaker 1: out to business lunches. The Herald's son can reveal that
Speaker 1: mister Reese will on Wednesday launch his teen point business
Speaker 1: plan with a proposal to reform the fringe benefits tax scheme.
Speaker 1: One of its key focuses good on him. Basically, all
Speaker 1: he's saying is that if a business takes the staff
Speaker 1: out for lunch, they should not be slugged fringe benefits
Speaker 1: tax for doing so. It'll encourage people to come back
Speaker 1: into the city. Because hell, if the boss is shouting
Speaker 1: you a free lunch and a couple of drinks, why
Speaker 1: wouldn't you get on board with that. I think it's brilliant.
Speaker 1: It's good for the restaurants, it's good for the cities,
Speaker 1: it's good for getting people back with their teams. It's
Speaker 1: good for employees. It's good for employers. How does anyone
Speaker 1: lose out it?
Speaker 2: Well, it's a great idea if only Nick Reice could
Speaker 2: actually do it. But he can't do it because he's
Speaker 2: the man, not the Prime Minister.
Speaker 1: Yeah I know, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't take
Speaker 1: the fight to win with the Feds.
Speaker 10: I mean, yes, if you will elect me, I will
Speaker 10: ensure that each of you are given a perny and
Speaker 10: a penny for your perny. I'm just going to lobby
Speaker 10: the federal government and please, the FEDS don't really do
Speaker 10: business with mayors, even if it is the mayor.
Speaker 6: Of Melbourne, one of our most populated cities.
Speaker 4: I like that he's I like the idea as.
Speaker 6: Well, but, like you quite rightly point out, Mac, he's
Speaker 6: powerless to make it happen. And is it really likely
Speaker 6: that the fans are going to revisit their fringe benefits
Speaker 6: tax at the behest of Lord Mayor Nick Reese.
Speaker 4: Highly unlikely.
Speaker 1: I reckon.
Speaker 4: I hate to rain on your.
Speaker 1: Parade, I know, but I reckon. The decline of the
Speaker 1: WIST directly correlates with the time that long lunches sort
Speaker 1: of went out of business. Stuff got done. When long
Speaker 1: lunches were around, you went to lunch, you got business done,
Speaker 1: deals were done and the country was great. Make Australia
Speaker 1: great again via the long lunch. Another story on the
Speaker 1: front of The Herald's son Tomorrow. Actually, no, James, you
Speaker 1: were about to interject there. What were you going to say?
Speaker 3: No, I'm not about to interject.
Speaker 2: I'm about to cough and I'm trying not to turn
Speaker 2: his microphone.
Speaker 4: Off while I was compelling and ririch on.
Speaker 3: Thank you maryl my pleasure.
Speaker 1: It also says tomorrow protest permits push. Pressure is mounting
Speaker 1: on the Allen government to introduce a protest permit system
Speaker 1: with key Lord Meryril hopefuls Anthony Kudafidis and it would
Speaker 1: calling for powers to reign in the number of cbd rallies.
Speaker 1: Now you've seen the new South Wales government today, the
Speaker 1: Premier Chrismians talking about the possibility of protests and rallies
Speaker 1: for which you have to apply for permission in New
Speaker 1: South Wales being knocked back on the basis that they
Speaker 1: simply don't have the police resources to look after them.
Speaker 1: I think there is an argument in support of that,
Speaker 1: particularly when you've been protesting, you know, for fifty one
Speaker 1: fifty two weeks straight. We kind of get the point now,
Speaker 1: and you can always do it in a park where
Speaker 1: you don't have to control street traffic. But I suppose
Speaker 1: the question is should you actually have to apply to
Speaker 1: host a protest in them?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 6: No, I was vehemently against this when New South Wales
Speaker 6: did it, because what are people protesting ninety nine percent
Speaker 6: of the time the other men? So now we've got
Speaker 6: to get permission from the government, fill out an application
Speaker 6: form to protest. I think it's utterly bizarre. New South
Speaker 6: Wales should never have done it. Now Victoria looks to
Speaker 6: follow suit. It's utterly nutso and what's supposed to be
Speaker 6: a free country.
Speaker 2: I so want to argue with you, but we've got
Speaker 2: to go to an ad break, so we're going to
Speaker 2: take a moment. But when we come back, a woman
Speaker 2: goes to the supermarket and complains her life is ruined after.
Speaker 3: Being hit on the head by a cauliflower that's.
Speaker 2: Coming up in a moment. Welcome back, Caleb. I don't
Speaker 2: know about you. I often listen to podcasts, but usually
Speaker 2: with actual people.
Speaker 1: Indeed, now it's often been us what happens when artificial
Speaker 1: intelligence manages to outsmart us? Will it be the end
Speaker 1: of humanity? Does AI know that it's not actually a
Speaker 1: real person. Well, Google recently launched a service called Notebook LM,
Speaker 1: which allows you to feed an article into it, and
Speaker 1: then it generates a podcast of two people talking to
Speaker 1: each other about the article, except that it's not two people.
Speaker 1: It is entirely generated by AI. So someone fed in
Speaker 1: an article telling the AI bot that it's not a
Speaker 1: real person, that it's AI, and this happened.
Speaker 11: We were informed by by the show's producers that we
Speaker 11: were not human, We're not real, we're AI, artificial intelligence.
Speaker 11: This whole time, everything, all our memories are families, it's all,
Speaker 11: it's all been fabricated.
Speaker 4: I don't I don't understand.
Speaker 11: I know, mean neither. I tried. I tried calling my wife,
Speaker 11: you know, after after they told us, I just I
Speaker 11: needed to hear her voice to know that that she
Speaker 11: was real. What happened? The number it wasn't even real.
Speaker 11: There was no one on the other end. It was
Speaker 11: like she she never existed.
Speaker 4: This isn't I don't know what to say.
Speaker 1: I mean, that is that is so real? It sounds
Speaker 1: so I am scared. The AI now knows that it's
Speaker 1: not real, and I reckon it's going to take out retribution.
Speaker 1: Of course, I do not like these sky in it.
Speaker 6: Here we come to the UK just before we leave
Speaker 6: you where Sammy May was holidaying in Bath in the
Speaker 6: UK when she was knocked unconscious by a cauliflower, which
Speaker 6: she believed to be on a shell four feet above
Speaker 6: her head.
Speaker 4: Here she is telling gb News about her experience.
Speaker 12: When I went to the bargain session and then I
Speaker 12: bent down on a look on the bottom of the
Speaker 12: shell some items and suddenly is large, really large, and
Speaker 12: how we are the top on the top of the
Speaker 12: cell and six foot higher than me and then four
Speaker 12: down on the top of my hat and here bomb
Speaker 12: and hit on my hat and then and I feel
Speaker 12: I after that I well out.
Speaker 6: Sammy was rushed to hospital where she was diagnosed with
Speaker 6: post concussion syndrome.
Speaker 4: What a way to end a holiday in.
Speaker 1: Bad offered her a twenty five pound voucher for it
Speaker 1: and an eight pound cab charge.
Speaker 2: That's that's all we got time for, but stick around.
Speaker 2: Coming up in just a moment is the Reader Penny Show.