Piers "Logical Gymnast" Ackerman

Piers Ackerman is a fantastic logical gymnast. In his column of June 21st, he makes a serious effort to spin the Petro Georgiou & Co. affair in a way that makes Howard out to be a hero and the dissenting MP’s blundering idiots. Let’s have a look…

PETRO Georgiou, the Liberal Party's outspoken immigration activist may have won the (bleeding) hearts of a handful of doctors' wives in his electorate with his refugee campaign – but that's about all.

Ackerman wastes no time in getting straight to what he does best – ad hominem attacks against those he disagrees with. “Bleeding hearts”, “doctors’ wives” and of course Georgiou is an “activist”. Remember, when right wing columnists like Ackerman use the word “activist”, they don’t mean “a person actively engaged in trying to make political social change”. When they use “activist”, they mean “an agitator disrupting social harmony” – it carries a negative connotation. Also notice ad populum gets a run in the first sentence, in that he suggests it is a mere “handful” of “doctors’ wives” who approve of the actions of Georgiou & Co. Piers thinks that the changes to migration policy are strongly opposed by a majority of Australian citizens, and that’s good enough for him. All those “bleeding hearts” should just shut up and get with the program.

Ackerman further displays his appreciation for the ad hominem method of argument with this:

Feisty Sophie Panopoulos, the very successful Victorian MP, quite accurately described the Georgiou push as akin to political terrorism, whatever some of the wets in the community may think. Any attempt to hold a government hostage to the wishes of four or five backbenchers is a kind of political terrorism, and it would be difficult to find a more apt description of the stunt…

Hypothetical: Labor is in power. Backbenchers demand change to current Labor policy on, let’s say, industrial relations. Labor MP brands said backbenchers as “political terrorists”. Would Piers Ackerman agree that the Labor MP’s comments were “accurate”? Would he agree that “it would be difficult to find a more apt description” of the backbenchers’ actions? Would he call those in the community who disagreed with such language “wets”? You bet your nelly he wouldn’t.

Ackerman laments that “the Georgiou stunt did have an immediate and unpleasant fallout.” He cites the incident involving numerous Chinese asylum seekers at Villawood and…

…wannabe political refugee Chen Yonglin was moved yet again to call yet another press conference and cash in on his growing notoriety

This is a fantastic example of the hypocrisy which flows from conservatives like Ackerman – “We feel for those who suffer under authoritarian communist regimes. Except of course those who seek asylum in Australia after defecting and openly criticising authoritarian communist regimes.”

As the amendments to be introduced will usher in a greater degree of flexibility for illegal entrants with children, it may now be only a matter of time before renewed attempts are made by people smugglers to find new cargoes to bring down from Indonesia.

Hang on Piers, I thought the primary goal of the government’s immigration policy was to “stop the boats”. Your article suggests that the changes were a dismal failure for Georgiou because mandatory detention (the “deterrent” which even John Howard has conceded is “regrettable”) still exists, and now your prophesising that the changes will lead to the return of boatloads of asylum seekers flooding Australia’s shores? Make up your mind.

The Government may have accommodated Mr Georgiou but there is no prospect of accommodating the more feral advocates for illegal entrants.
They are still determined to fight on for wannabe refugees to be released into the community without any restrictions.

“Feral advocates”, “wannabe refugees” -- more ad-hominem. Tell me Piers, do you enjoy writing columns appealing to the lowest common denominator? And why do you insist on putting words into the mouths of these “feral advocates”? Those who oppose the current policy wish to see asylum seekers who arrive by boat treated in the same fashion as those who arrive by air. They are also aware of and accept the need for a brief period of detention such that health and security risks can be carried out.

Mr Howard has even managed to turn what some saw as a serious threat to his Government into a public relations triumph by calling for other dissenters within the party to present their views for examination.
In opening up the debate in this manner, he gives the lie to those who claim he has strayed from the liberal guidelines of the longest-serving Liberal prime minister, Sir Robert Menzies.
Sticking it to his critics, Mr Howard has now publicly embraced the notion of the Liberal Party as the broad church its founders planned…

OK, so Howard’s a legend for paying lip service to the “broad church” philosophy of the Liberal party, but those who DO present their views for examination should be prepared to wear the label of “political terrorist”?

Conclusion: Article contains zero argumentative value, but is great for a laugh.