Friday, 9 April 2010

The Wildness Society demonstrates restraint and tolerance

This just in...
  • FROM Tim Seelig
    Julie O'Neill
    Date 9 April 2010 2:25pm
    Subject: Serious complaint about posting from Bryan Law

    Dear Mike,

    We wish to make a formal and serious complaint about a posting from Bryan Law, and need to advise that a complaint to the Police will be made about this.

    At the end of Law’s
    latest piece on Wild Rivers, he says:

    “In that event we get to choose the lesser of two evils, and I can’t imagine anything more disgracefully evil than the arrogance and intolerance of Anna Bligh and TWS. I say that if they want to die in a ditch, they ought be allowed to. Perhaps even assisted.”

    The last bit represents a highly reckless and irresponsible thing to say, and an implied threat to the safety and wellbeing of our campaign staff. When added to the death threat against Jason O’Brien last year, and other matters previously reported to the Police, this is not something that can or will be tolerated or ignored by TWS. This new matter is to be reported to the Police.

    I suggest that as Moderator of the
    CairnsBlog you examine your options for addressing or removing such reckless, irresponsible and threatening content, paradoxically made by someone who claims to be to be a “peace activist”.

    Yours sincerely,

    Dr Tim Seelig (State Campaign Manager)
    Ms Julie O’Neill (Convenor, Management Committee)
    The Wilderness Society Queensland Inc.

    The Wilderness Society (Qld)
    2/136 Boundary St, WEST END QLD 4101
    ph: (07) 3846 1420; mob: 0439 201 183
    Membership freecall 1800 030 641

    Please think of the environment before joining our organisation


Tim Seelig said...

Dear Mike
Actually that was a private email to you as Moderator, not a posting (which I could have made myself).

hieronymus bosch said...

what a ridiculous world we live in!

if foolinshness killed, some people would be terminal, and the world's IQ would rise by the second

What? said...


That's ridiculously unethical of you to post that Mike. You've really crossed the line here.

Can you imagine the uproar if a newspaper posted such a private correspondence about a serious and legitimate matter?

I suggest you get off your high horse and take some responsibility for your actions.

Bryan Law said...

Hi Tim, old stork,

So you wrote to Mike as moderator, asking him to censor me because you don’t like what I wrote?

And now you’re upset that Mike publishes your e-mail, and shows everyone what a bunch of intolerant, censorious, and self-important blowhards you all are. Well, I’d be embarrassed too if I was bigoted and ignorant enough to censor my political opponents. And particularly embarrassed if I was also stupid enough to think I could make such efforts without exposure and accountability.

You know that “die in a ditch” has a particular colloquial political meaning, and in the context of the Queensland Wild Rivers Legislation it means that the ALP will lose the next election catastrophically – and there’s nothing TWS can do to save them.

And yes, I will assist in that process. Joyfully, exhuberantly, at times pungently as I hold forth the view inspired by Jesus and Gandhi alike that “we can do better than you mob”. TWS = ALP

Michael P Moore said...

"Ridiculously unethical"? Now that's ridiculous.

Write to a Blog and expect to get the coverage you deserve.

The Wild Rivers debate on CairnsBlog is not something I wish to engage in privately with people I have no prior connection with.

Tim Seelig's email to CairnsBlog was not marked 'private' or 'confidential' Regardless, his threat to me to censor or alter a contributor's column on here is something I wouldn't engage in, if I agree or disagree in the original posting by Bryan Law.

I however welcome TWS to debate the issues openly, and would gladly publish an opinion piece from Dr Tim, unedited, for everyone to see and respond to.

Regarding newspapers "not" publishing correspondence, they turn letters into news stories all the time.

As for the nameless idiot who tells me to get off my "high horse' - all I can say is that TWS continue to live up to their reputation of not debating the issues and simply firing personal insults.

What? said...


What a ridiculous explanation - clearly if an complaint email contains information about a perceived a threat of violence, then you have no right to publish it online without permission.

There is no way to describe this other than ethical and extremely poor judgement.

Clearly you understood the email was not intended for public consumption.

You are more than willing to give others personal serves for their journalistic standards, so please spare us the trite about personal insults when accountability comes to bear on you (and the irony of calling me an "idiot" then complaining about personal insults).

This has got nothing to do with the wild rivers debate and everything to do with self-appointed blog-masters having to adhere to the same ethical standards as the rest of the media sector.

Black Fella south cairns said...

hahhah watching this on the sidelines........goes to show that this Tim guy was caught out fair and square and now he can't even write under his own name.

What TWatS

Bryan Outlaw said...

Bryan Law is now spinning wildly, terrific self-appointed "bush lawyer" he is and all.

Anyone that reads and comprehends the English language can read this as a physical threat.

It's colloquial nothing.

You've all gone way over the line for reasoned political discourse.

hieronymus bosch said...

Ok, this skirtish 'civilised' blather is pathologically retarded.

Those who consider “die in a ditch” as a physical threat should kill themselves as soon as possible.

I offer my assistance.

colinwhoelarfs said...

BUGGER THIS I AM GOING TO sue you bryan law or maybe jill you or maybe mary you hhhaaaaa you crack me up hhaaaaaa ,good nights fun .
ps it is a blog not the wilderness society webpage ,mike owns it suck it up.

Marusi said...

Some people here have forgotten rule number one about publishing on the internet.

This link might help you remember how blog media works these days.

(With thanks to Scott Bridges)

KitchenSlut said...

The only observation I would make is that the Wilderness Society and Alan Blake are on a comparable level with each other?

Bob Beamon said...

I think it is a great shame that Tim Seelig bothered to reply and make an issue of Bryan's post. From what I have seen on this blog Mike publishes just about anything and Bryan stirs people up on just about anything.

As someone who has been following this WR debate pretty closely I would say that TWS have conducted themselves with admirable restraint over the last 12 months despite the goadings of Mr Pearson and the Australian.

My guess is that Tim, being human, just snapped and is probably now regretting his response.

Matt CYP said...

You're a bit sensitive, Tim. This is a blog, not a peer reviewed journal. Bryan? Well, he's obnoxious at times, but he's a good poor bastard and we put up with him. He's right about Wild Rivers - we don't need to curtail Native Title to protect ecosystems, and our Aboriginal countrymen shouldn't allow their title, so recently won back, to be diminished, before they have had reasonable opportunities to develop their own vision for the future of their communities and their ancestral lands. They deserve from us, the confidence to say, "It's your land, you decide how it is to be cared for."
Rather than the "We know what's best for you and we'll make sure you get it" approach of DERM.

(Mr Moore, perhaps "bastard" is a bit rude. If you think so, would you delete just that word and post the rest?)

brad m said...

Hello What?

I'm trying to understand your comment


How would you come to this conclusion? I'm genuinely interested in your belief.

I didn't previously read Bryan's article, I wasn't really interested in the whole argument. Frankly I found it all boring.

I'm now leaning heavily away from the wilderness society's view - their actions appear to be heavy handed. I'll be sure to remember this next time I come across fund raising.

I didn't see any threat of violence in Bryan's statement. I've watched Bryan in the media for a while, and while I don't agree with too much of what he does, I have never once presumed him to be anything but a gentle giant. Often persistent and possibly annoying to his targets, but never violent - ever.

They're protesting too much with an apparent aim of removing views different from their own.

To me it looks like the only reason they didn't want the letter published was because the complaint that it carries is embarrassing.

Slutkitchen said...

Tim, silly, you should have known that Mike and Byran get their daily jollies out of baiting people with slander and bile, then ruthlessly exploit any attempt to call them to account.

They like to think of themselves as the hero cowboys of Cairns, policing those that don't conform to their worldviews, using this blog as their primary voice, given few else really care to listen.

It's there little e-power trip.

It is amusing, which is why I am so sad to actually read it every now and then. But next time, just ignore the petty taunts!

Carroll and Nic said...

As usual, the Wonderless Society attack personal and DON'T debate the issues that they think they can over ride Aboriginal people who have managed the land and Cape York River rather wellfor 50,000 years.

Pato said...

Tim, Your new religion is destroying the economic potential for all of the people of Cape York - and your smugness and arrogance is showing through. You (TWS)were able to con the people of the SE Corner but you were not interested in talking to anyone on the Cape about your Wild Rivers plans - I see on your web site that Pascoe is next - all across the Aboriginal Freehold Land. I gather that if the Senate Committe and the National Parliament overrides your WR takeover - you have already got your backside covered with new National Parks in train - and if that is not enough then you can go to World Heritage Listing.This iniquitous exclusion of people is unparalled.

Syd Walker said...

The last time I delved into the wonderful world of CairnsBlog as a contributor, Bryan Law made several vicious, stupid, unsupported, ignorant, obfuscatory, possibly-actionable and most definitely dumb-ass comments about me and my views.

I certainly do not feel myself to be in Bryan's corner and know from personal experience that his output is often the verbal equivalent of untreated sewage.

However, TWS's response to what appear to be orchestrated attacks against that organisation by the likes of oddballs like Bryan on the left and Murdoch's bought-and-paid for lackeys on the right is inexplicably substandard.

I think this fiasco is only the latest is a long series of quite serious PR mishandlings over the Wild Rvers issue on the part of TWS spokepeople.

Bryan's article contains some useful information and summaries, but one was left with the feeling that this was merely the bread upon which he can spread his latest tainted jam. He repeated old hyperbole and smears. One might imagine TWS has a detailed pro-forma response ready for this kind of material, which could could tweaked as necessary to suit the specific circumstances. After all, these smears and accusations are not new.

Yet instead of responding in substance to Bryan's hit-piece, it seems TWS spokespeople have behaved (again) like pompous twits themselves. Appearing pompous when compared to Bryan is quite a feat.

It's a shame. Simple, clear, factually-based responses to attacks from the ilk of Bryan Law should be all that's needed to demolish them. (Incidentally, I don't mean to dismiss Bryan's entire output when I say this - just the self-righteous, irrational and deceptive parts of his contributions).

The often-overlooked longer-term consequence of this long-running circus over Wild Rivers on the Cape has been to damage – at least at a national level - the potential for mutual support and political co-operation between the conservation movement and Aboriginal people in this country.

For the most part, the two are natural allies. In the 1990s, Cape York itself stood as a shining example of what could be achieved by broad co-operation between the two sectors and highlighted the huge potential convergence in their interests.

By 2010, widespead excitement about the prospects for green-black alliances in this country has been replaced by confusion and some rancour.

That state of affairs serves some interests very well. They reside, for the most part, over at the big end of town.

Whether Bryan is merely an unknowing dupe of interests he claims to oppose, or has more personally at stake in promoting confusion, remains an unsolved mystery for me.

It's one reason I shall probably continue to check his output from time to time.

I also keep reasonably up to date with what characters like Andrew Bolt have to say for themselves, for similar reasons.

When circus is in town, pay attention to the clowns.

Kitslutchen said...

There is an obvious problem here with our educational standards and literacy!

I am not specifically aware of the political colloquialism Bryan refers to and didn't need to be tounderstand immediately it was metaphorical and the implications political and not physical.

I just hope in this 'modern' age persons like the Outlaw don't still read their bible in similar literal context? Similarly perhaps the Wilderness Society has demonstrates more affinity with religious fundamentalism than the acolytes would prefer to think of themsleves!

Go back to school you have failed basic comprehension and there are bigger issues than a misguided assault on a single sentence with no real implications for anyone!

nocturnal congress said...

Arrrrrgggggh, it's the "Ghost who walks" (only its Syd, not Kit.)
Jeez mate, we all thought you had karked it or something. Welcome back!!! Christ, we missed you.