As he awaits the results of the NSW election count, which is currently looking favourable, David Leyonhjelm weighed in on the smear against Pauline Hanson for her comments on the Port Arthur Massacre:
Not the first time David has attempted to get some answers:
Port Arthur has been considered a taboo subject politically for the last 23 years, in terms of any questions to the contrary of the official story. The media attack on Pauline Hanson’s comments and the public response is a reflection of that.
Even Liberal idiot Eric Abetz tried the old “I know someone that died so shut up” silencing tactic.
There are plenty of intelligent and valid questions to be asked of the events of April 28, 1996 and that should be the subject of rigorous investigation and debate; not the subject of rubbishing and dismissal from statist types that seem to think that taking John Howard’s word on everything is the de facto setting.
It’s arrogant to assume we know everything that happened then and one can argue if the events of Port Arthur had happened in the era of social media and the internet, we might not be where we are at now, in terms of the level of information available.
Sure, it’s valid to argue that it may be too late to have one. For example, key witness and pro-Inquiry activist Wendy Scurr, the first person into the Broad Arrow Café after the tragedy, sadly died last year after campaigning for a Royal Commission from day one.
However, if we can have a Royal Commission into decades-old child abuse by the Catholic Church and the Whiskey Au-Go-Go Inquiry can be re-opened after 44 years, then we can attempt to resolve some unanswered questions.
Open the books.
Nothing to hide nothing to fear, right?