Alannah and Madeline Foundation CEO Lesley Podesta has taken to the Herald Sun to claim that the charity is being “bullied and trolled” by firearm owners. This in the midst of the announcement of the National Firearm Amnesty by Justice Minister Michael Keenan and was deliberately timed to coincide with such.
This is not the first time AMF have pulled this stunt. John Bertrand tried this last year at the height of the Adler debacle.
True to form, AMF couldn’t help but try and capitalise on said firearm amnesty announcement media blitz, with Walter Mikac reverence piece #5650334674 in the Sydney Morning Herald. I will concede it certainly is impressive that they manage to find different ways to milk the same story for 21 years straight.
Strangely enough, Podesta provided no comment on the release of the most recent AIC data last week which clearly showed that from 1989/90 to 2013/14, bare hands and knives were the weapons of choice in homicide:
“It’s all about the psychology of young guys — I’m not unsympathetic to those guys,” said Ms Podesta, a former Fred Hollows Foundation executive. “In many cases their lives are tough, they don’t have a lot, they’re victims of globalisation in some cases, their lives have been affected by job losses. But the answer is not ‘give you a gun to give you back your masculinity, power and status in the community. This is what the gun lobby tells them, that if they had these guns, they wouldn’t feel disempowered anymore.”
It doesn’t really get much more condescending than that. Apparently if you’re a firearm owner you are “damaged” in some way and unemployed. Way to also take the moral high ground with some outright sexism. Has Podesta consulted Olympic Gold Medal winner Catherine Skinner and the thousands of female firearm owners as to whether firearms are a substitute for their masculinity?
Podesta also states “It’s a tactic the (US gun lobby group) NRA does all the time: ‘Don’t let these pussies be heard, shut them up, they’ve got no balls, who are these bitches?”
Right, we’re sure the NRA are making such statements in their official press releases. I’m sure also that Dana Loesch would feel comfortable saying similar. One could only imagine the outrage if the firearm owning community made a similar statement about any other demographic, but apparently Podesta is allowed to play the sexism card (and the victim card) and get away with it. This was printed in a newspaper that spends it’s time calling out the hypocrisy and identity politics of leftists, no less. Welcome to 2017.
Well that’s not surprising considering who is on their board:
Not hard to draw a correlation between this and who are the most vocal anti-firearm proponents, including the infamous “just be compliant during a home invasion” Neil Mitchell and Malcolm “I can have armed security you pay for but you guys can’t even own a pepper spray” Turnbull.
Podesta also said “many of the 60,000 people who signed the foundation’s Keep Australia Safe From Gun Violence petition were gun owners who agreed they did not need higher-powered weapons.”
Unless Podesta is willing to provide a statistical breakdown and analysis of the political persuasions of the owners of said IP addresses who signed the petition, whom a large percentage of seem to be originating from overseas, then it’s a tenuous argument to make.
Look at all these “local” signatures:
Also the small fact that even if it hypothetically was purely 60,000 legitimate firearm owners, and not Greens voters posing as firearm owners, that signed, that’s 60,000 out of over 1,000,000 nationwide – meaningless.
Podesta finishes off her attack claiming “the foundation also wants the establishment of a Community Safety Council comprising first-responders, public health bodies, the firearms industry and recreational shooters, to enable civil and mature discussion of weapons issues.”
It’s fair to say that from this article and the 21 years of previous offerings from AMF and Gun Control Australia, that any such consultative forum will be neither mature nor civil from her side. It’s a meaningless statement to appear reasonable after the preceding several paragraphs of basically, vitriol, against firearm owners.
Podesta doesn’t have an actual argument so she has resorted to sexism and slander to get her point across – that’s generally the Saul Alinsky playbook tactic of someone who is losing an argument. While we in no way condone such behaviour, she hasn’t provided any evidence of said “abuse” from gun owners either. A visit to the Alannah and Madeline Facebook Page often gets you the ban hammer should you post a dissenting opinion, no matter how valid and well formulated, to AMF’s true intentions and work.
She has also deliberately conflated justified criticism and correction of mistruths by her organisation towards the topic of firearms with “trolling” to try and dismiss her detractors. It is noted that New Zealand Police Association Chief Chris Cahill tried this same schtick on last month and promptly lost.
God forbid Podesta ever visit 4Chan.
This is also, in part, an attempt by AMF to goad firearm owners into doing that which she is claiming to justify her stance, a tactic made infamous by David Shoebridge. Pretty lame bait, mate.
But that’s alright, unlike AMF’s staff apparently, we don’t need a safe space because words hurt.
If AMF are going to play the man because they can’t play the ball and get upset when someone has a differing opinion to them, then perhaps they need to re-assess what they’re doing involving themselves in the firearm debate. Being a victim doesn’t make you an expert, nor does it give you the right to collectively punish and attack those who had nothing to do with the Port Arthur Massacre, and call for further punitive measures against said populace.
Note to Lesley Podesta and AMF: come up with an actual argument other than victimhood, appeals to emotion and vacuous celebrity endorsements or forever hold your peace.
so will this reply be published as a rebuttal in the paper ?
Leave us law abiding firearms owners alone. We unjustly cop enough negative media coverage as it is, as usual the “anti firearms argument” is coming from somebody who hasn’t the slightest idea of what they are talking about on the issue, typical, “well I don’t need a firearm to live my life & do my job so nobody does”
I’m not writing articles & making comments on how to run a children’s foundation am I? No, because it’s none of my business & not something I know anything about, maybe somthing to take into consideration.
Can we sue her for defamation?