The witch burners of the Left and a reply New Matilda refuses to publish . . .

Chris Graham, editor of New Matilda, reckons I'm a "Schapeller," a "Truther" and a "Conspiracy theorist." I've no idea what those terms mean (and I don't think Chris Graham knows either), but as a 50-something grandmother and experienced nurse, I deal in facts, not adolescent insults - something the public appreciates according to a 2014 Roy Morgan poll. RN's have 91% trust rating, while Chris's hovers around a shocking 18%.

So what's the history behind Graham's bizarre rant, which includes a weird snipe in New Matilda's Twitter bio, quote: "Nation's leading blocker of Schapelle truthers"? (All requests to Chris Graham for a written reply to that inane barb were deflected or ignored).

So much for a publication which says it welcomes "Open debate," and so much for one that chooses to sledge a young, working class woman who (even if she's guilty, and I don't think she is), spent nearly 10 years in a hellish prison for a victimless crime.

How many more pounds of flesh does Graham want? What about writing "A leading supporter of refugee and indigenous rights" in New Matilda's bio instead? It's strange to focus on insulting the powerless, over supporting victims of the powerful.

For background on this controversy, when Chris Graham published Professor Barry Spurr's correspondence, exposing the senior academic's racist language (pertinent, as Spurr was a consultant on the Australian Government's national English curriculum review), New Matilda was viciously attacked by the Murdoch press and allegations of "Hacking" private emails were thrown around. The delicious irony wasn't lost on me (given the illegal antics of the Dirty Digger's minions, outed in the UK's Leveson Inquiry), and I lent Graham some support in a phone call, and in a post I did.

All well and good, until the Senator Nova Peris "Scandal" erupted.  Nova is an ALP politician and the first Indigenous woman in Australia's Federal parliament.  Murdoch's gutter press has waged unrelenting war on the Australian Labor Party. They ran front-page headlines screaming "Nova's Sex Scandal," alleging Nova had an affair with American athlete Ato Boldon, after the News Corp sewer rats obtained her private emails. The hypocrisy was breathtaking, as Murdoch had just savaged Chris Graham and New Matilda on the same issue (publication of private emails). Seems it's fine for Murdoch to throw eggs at a woman for the cardinal sin of allegedly having sex with a consenting adult, but not OK for New Matilda to expose deep bigotry at the heart of Australia's educational system.

Naturally, Nova defended herself from the Murdoch crazies, but rather than support her, I was stunned when Chris Graham added his voice to News Corp attack-dogs like Andrew Bolt.  He rounded on Nova for "Lying" in response to the smears. Here's a quote from a New Matilda article of 3 November 2014: "Senator Peris is a very powerful woman in the public eye. And she has not been truthful. New Matilda expects the feature to be ready for publication before the end of the week."

But it seems "Before the end of the week" translates to "Sometime never," as nearly five months later (at the time of writing), New Matilda still hasn't substantiated their attack on Nova.  Neither have they apologised or published a reply from the Senator. That's pretty piss-poor journalism in my book and I let Chris Graham know it. Here's some of my scathing feedback:

"I really cannot understand this intense focus on Nova Peris, while much more serious issues are ignored by New Matilda. The foul, witch burning nastiness of the gutter press is not a small 'Side issue.' Nova Peris was not targeted for what she did (or didn't), do - she was targeted for who she is. Exposing Rupert Murdoch's squalor is much more urgent, and of much more interest. Last time I looked, Nova didn't hack the phone of a dead schoolgirl, or lie about football fans pick pocketing the dead, nor was she shamed into closing down a long-standing newspaper because it was so vile and she wasn’t the subject of a book exposing scores of despicable acts. Further, to assert media crime doesn't exist in the Land Down Under is wishful thinking (and very naive). The only reason it doesn't 'Exist' in Oz is because journalists right across the political spectrum (including Chris Graham it seems), are too cowardly to talk about it. There is a large amount of information about what goes on in the Australian media (re illegality as serious as anything revealed by the UK's Leveson inquiry), but unlike the Nova Peris emails, Chris Graham has shown a complete disinterest in the evidence."

After that, Chris Graham's vitriol began.  His insults about me (documented above), clearly show my response got up his nose. The Australian "Media crime" I refer to in that quote (which includes phone hacking), relates to Col Chapman's detailed allegations about the illegal activity of various media organisations in their attempts to smear Schapelle and her family. Chapman is a well known private investigator who has worked extensively for Channel 7 (and other outlets), in their attempts to gather dirt on chosen targets.

Hence the "Schapelle" angle. Is Chris Graham invested in protecting his journalistic buddies from a bonfire which (if stoked), could rip like wild-fire through his "Profession" and involve many more allegations of illegal activity - not to mention burn his own prospects?  Let's face it, any hack who takes a blow torch to his colleagues by exposing media crime Down Under won't win a popularity contest.

Guess that's why I'm a "Nutter," but the Fairfax scribe forced fork out thousands after a successful defamation action against him in 2014 (by Schapelle's family), escapes Chris Graham's attention, even though the bizarre claims of the journalist in question shrivelled to nothing in the cold light of court. Channel 10 hack Steve Price slithers under Graham's radar too, despite the fact he was recently forced to make a grovelling public apology after spruiking similar innuendoes.

There are other layers to this debacle as well. The bovver boys of the Left have a long history of ignoring female victims of corruption. Too "Cissy" for them to concern themselves with I guess? For example, Lindy Chamberlain, one of Australia's most high profile cases, didn't exist for  the "Progressives" of the time, as outlined in The Australian Left Review by David McKnight.

Then even though Michael Chamberlain clearly explained (in his recent book "Heart of Stone"), their ordeal was no "Accident," but a deliberate set-up intent on protecting serious investments in the Northern Territory tourist industry (baby-eating dingoes aren't good for business), not one journalist on the "Left" has investigated those claims, or even commented on them. Seems any amount of corporate and Government slime can go unnoticed as long as the victim is a woman.

To illustrate further, Julian Assange is not a rapist, David Hicks is not a terrorist, Lindy Chamberlain is not a murderer and Schapelle Corby is not a drug smuggler - and Christine Assange (Julian's Mother), agree with me.  Here's some quotes from her (via Twitter, in December 2012 and January 2013):

"What do Lindy Chamberlain, David Hicks, Schapelle Corby, Julian Assange have in common? Abuse of legal process & trial by media sensation."

"Now I have some idea what the families of Lindy Chamberlain and Schapelle Corby went thru . . . trial by media . . . ruin lives to sell papers. #Assange"

But while the macho warriors of the Left support male heroes like Julian Assange and David Hicks (and yes, it's true they're victims and deserve our support), the female sacrifices to corruption and cover-up are blatantly disregarded.

Check out The Expendable Project re Schapelle, every fact is backed up by Government documents obtained via Freedom of of Information legislation, official sources and insider, whistleblower testimony. But New Matilda's Chris Graham refuses to debate these vital issues like an adult, because he can't. He prefers to shout infantile abuse from the sidelines, hoping his "Cred" will deter the public from looking deeper.

I think New Matilda is a "Mini-me" Guardian, subject to the same boundaries on the "Corporate" Left described by Media Lens.  Why? Simply because any hack stepping outside those limits effectively wrecks their future in a rapidly shrinking industry.  Highly popular Guardian blogger and journalist Nafeez Ahmed found this out the hard way when he was sacked after describing Israel's grab for Gaza's gas reserves, though I highly recommend his brilliant new independent media initiative.

Schapelle's high-profile case clearly exposes the "War on Terror" as a fraud too.  While John Howard was relentlessly following George Bush into Iraq to "Save us" from "Weapons of Mass Destruction" he was equally stubborn in supporting his buddies at Macquarie Bank, as they slashed aviation security to protect the corporate bottom line.

So much for stopping the "Bad guys" as criminal airport staff rip open passenger luggage after security screening. But hey don't let that bother you New Matilda, Schapelle's just a slutty bogan bird, well beneath the lofty intellectual heights of the mens room . . . meanwhile, hundreds share the facts you're too gutless and women-hating to discuss, via a huge, grass roots justice campaign.  The public no longer relies on "Professional" journalists, we're all citizen scribes now (thank goodness).