March 18, 2004


The President v David Hicks, director Curtis Levy’s taxpayer-funded ($433,000) celebration of the al-Qaeda boy from ad-Elaide, airs tonight on terror-tolerant SBS. Imre Salusinszky provides a preview:

What is most disturbing, and raises most unanswered questions, is just where this film stands on Hicks's virulent anti-Semitism.

In his letters to his family, Hicks tells them his training in Pakistan and Afghanistan is designed to ensure "the Western-Jewish domination is finished, so we live under Muslim law again". He denounces the plots of the Jews to divide Muslims and make them think poorly of Osama bin Laden.

After reading aloud a letter from his son warning him to ignore "the Jews' propaganda war machine", Terry Hicks smiles affectionately and says: "I think David's told me off in his way there."

Given that this film is unashamedly advocating for David Hicks, and that in promoting it Levy has said it exists to counter the "demonisation" of Hicks, shouldn't the film-maker have given us a hint about what he thinks of these racist comments, or pressed Terry Hicks to do so? Once upon a time, we would not have wondered where those on the Left stood on such a question.

But in an era when virulent anti-Semitism erupts daily on such "progressive" websites as, or when John Pilger can claim without embarrassment that the "Jewish establishment" will never allow the true causes of September 11 to be known, all bets, and all assumptions, are off.

Nor were my qualms settled by an interview with Levy on the World Socialist website, where he describes Hicks's racism as "innocent". He also says of Hicks, "I don't see him as undesirable or anything remotely like that", and adds that "the so-called war on terror has been invented by the US to deal with all sorts of movements that America doesn't agree with".

We’ll all enjoy watching this. We may as well; we’ve already paid for it.

Posted by Tim Blair at March 18, 2004 01:53 PM

This guy's last name is Levy? Please tell me he's not Jewish, Tim.

Posted by: Meryl Yourish at March 18, 2004 at 02:11 PM

A section from the clip advertising the `doco.' funded by theft called taxation has to the effect:

Mr.Hicks: My Boy is not a terrorist, has done nothing wrong.

O.K. Hicks may not have, by the time of his arrest killed neither Jew nor Westerner by bomb or bullett.
This only leaves, he joined the Taliban which, as an Islamic totalitarian regime: provided protection to AlQaeda:
to Afghastinais tortured men, women and children by gruesome means.

David Hicks is beyond the pale, a savage. No boy. Joined them volitionally.He is with them, party to the terror imposed on Afghanistanis, party to aiding and abetting AlQaeda, agreed to the aims of Islamo-fascists, as Tim cites.

The distinction is grief of a parent for over such a son.But such grief is not an excuse for refusing to face up to the reality of what that son is: a murderous scumbag.

Posted by: d at March 18, 2004 at 02:46 PM

Andrew Wilkie is running against Howard, Brian Deegan is thinking of running againts Downer.

How long until Terry Hicks thinks of giving it a shot? Is a stone's throw away from opening peoples' minds?

Posted by: Andjam at March 18, 2004 at 02:59 PM

It shames me to think that this bastard comes from my hometown. I will not be watching, it will make me too mad.

Posted by: Rob at March 18, 2004 at 03:02 PM

Bob Brown will be watching and no doubt maturbating over his Hero. "oh David, oh David" I can hear it now. Bob, our super, green left idol would no doubt want Hicks to have a ticker tape parade on his arrival home.

Posted by: Dog at March 18, 2004 at 03:27 PM

And, Dog, the damnedest thing about your welcome home scene, it is unnervingly plausible. I just shuddered - face it, Brown and co. nearly peed their pants just contemplating the slim possibility Latham is agreeable to shutting down forestry thus:
what would he and the have done if L. had said yes, and from this, given the horrid possibilty of an L. win, L proceeded to do so.

The prospect dulls porn to mere children's comic book reading. Tasmanians would have to flee en masse.

I have to stop it is too gruesome to continue contemplating from the end of a metaphorical 80 foot pole.

Posted by: d at March 18, 2004 at 03:36 PM

"Brian Deegan is thinking of running againts Downer."

Andjam, that article simply can't be right, we were reliably informed by those on the left that we were just being heartless and insensitive to his feelings when it was suggested that his virulent anti-howard stance appeared to be more than just a simple knee-jerk reaction to the death of his son and that it wouldn't be long before he announced that he was running for parliament.

As for Hicks and his "doting" father, didn't his Dad disown him and call him "mad" or a "nutter" or some such thing when he was first captured?

Posted by: Michael at March 18, 2004 at 03:47 PM

Surely we must be the only country with not one, but two TV Networks that operate with the intention of undermining the society that pays for them.

Posted by: Jimi at March 18, 2004 at 03:50 PM

Its not politically correct by SBS standards to talk about anti-semitism.

You can hurl any accusation against Jews, but when somebody actually debates their nonsense, leftists complain.
When leftists complain that America is run by a cabal of zionists, and somebody bothers to rebuke them, they complain "Look, hes crying anti-semitism to stifle debate. But we're not anti-semitic, we just spend all our energy criticising Jews and Israel. "

Posted by: Jono at March 18, 2004 at 04:16 PM

And here I thought the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR) up here in the USA were left leaning. Not crazy, but certainly biased. From reading your posts on these two networks, I think I'd rather watch Peter Jennings again, or endure another Barbara Walters interview of Barbara Streisand (shudder).

I hope you poor oscos have satellite TV down there, so that you can get something more rational and factual, like Cartoon Network.

Posted by: JeffS at March 18, 2004 at 04:17 PM

It's part of a large plot by Blockbuster to get people to rent more DVDs

Posted by: Mad Jack McMad at March 18, 2004 at 04:51 PM

This is what I think should be awaiting Messrs Hicks and Habib when they return to Australia.

Posted by: David at March 18, 2004 at 05:23 PM

A Blockbuster plot? More Jewish mischief. Can I have some money to make a documentary about it.

Posted by: superboot at March 18, 2004 at 05:51 PM

Seems snake eyes John Pilger is not the only making bucks out of publicly funded media outlets.
Apologising for terrorism and expressing the nauseating mantras and mea culpas of the left is big business after all.
at least this may be more interesting than the usual propaganda meted out by insight and lateline. will try to stay awake.

Posted by: davo at March 18, 2004 at 07:15 PM

I think I'll decline the invitation to watch this hat full of crap. I've already sat through Red Kerry bemoaning the inevitability of civil war in Iraq on the ABC's 7.30 report, and a 'background' report that found nothing but misery and mayhem in post-Saddam Baghdad. Funny watching DepSec State Armitage put Big Kezzah back in his box, but.

Posted by: Al Bundy at March 18, 2004 at 08:20 PM

According to fellow inmate Shafiq Rasul, David Hicks has renounced Islam and shaved his beard a year ago and has not been attending prayers.

Posted by: The Gnu Hunter at March 18, 2004 at 08:48 PM

Just watched the documentary.

One thing that struck me was that he fought for the KLA (not an airline, but the "Kosovo Liberation Army"), ie waged jihad, before actually becoming a Muslim. Says something about the people who convert to Islam, doesn't it?

The stepmother was reading her stuff. If she wanted to submit a written statement rather than speak, that's fine, but what she did was a bit dodgy.

David talked in one of his letters about paradise for martyrs. I was slightly disappointed he didn't mention the 72 virgins (or perhaps they didn't read that part out).

Posted by: Andjam at March 18, 2004 at 09:07 PM

Mate, got a site over at An Aussie View, enjoy your posts, so I added you to my "Mental Giants" section. Don't let the simple title fool you, I don't have Down Syndrome - my old man says it's the Agent Orange.

Posted by: Gary at March 18, 2004 at 10:45 PM

It would be really cool if all this Jewish controlling the world stuff was true. That means that I could quit my job and just wait for my one hundred beeeellion dollars.

It's just a matter of time before the conspiracy is unraveled so it looks like I am going to be stuck at work for the next 30 years.


Posted by: AG in Houston at March 18, 2004 at 11:15 PM

I find these denunciations of Terry Hicks disgusting and the not-so-subtle innuendos offensive. Did you know Hicks's father died in a concentration camp? Did you?

He fell out of a guard tower.

Posted by: Jeffersonian at March 18, 2004 at 11:44 PM

Sheesh, thanks Tim, I watched it on your recommendation and it was SOOO boring! I miss the days when people with zany political theories were entertaining, all that sombre self righteousness was too much, I dozed off...

Posted by: Kip Watson at March 18, 2004 at 11:58 PM

I don't know what he is supposed to have done in Afganistan but on his own admission whilst in Pakistan on a "tourist visa" he fired hundreds of rounds at Indian troops across the border. What had the Indians ever done to him -- nothing -- sounds like a complete fool to me --a dangerous one.

Posted by: R.J. at March 19, 2004 at 01:32 AM

Well yeah ! fell asleep before the ending again. GEEZ those ME programs are so dull !damn ! anyone know if he got the 72 virgins in the end ?
Did he get to look behind the burkhas ?
Did anyone out there NOT go to sleep before the ending ?
Give me back my Taxpayers money !

Posted by: davo at March 19, 2004 at 01:34 AM

where can i get one of those bright orange flightsuits with no pockets? they're Super!

Posted by: Floral Camper at March 19, 2004 at 08:56 AM

What? People on the Indian side may have been shot? Would Hicks have wanted that to happen?

Posted by: Andjam at March 19, 2004 at 09:49 AM

It's one of the true injustices of the Australian media that while his former comrade, Imre Saluzinsky, is lauded as a lead writer for Rupert Murdoch's national vanity broadsheet, 'Tommy' Blair remains either shamefully ignored or, at best, a laughing stock.

Posted by: Miranda Divide at March 19, 2004 at 12:07 PM

Who's "Tommy" Blair? Does he have a blog?

Posted by: Andrea Harris at March 19, 2004 at 12:55 PM