‘You are a disgusting human, shame on you Albanese': TV host slams PM for ‘slandering' Israel
'What a disgusting human being you are, Anthony Albanese,' Mr Dean said.
'There are Jewish people families still mourning the loss of their children, of their daughters, raped, murdered, butchered by the vile, vile thugs of Hamas.
'We saw not a single Gazan lift a hand to help any of those poor souls.
'You seriously diminish yourself as a human being and as the prime minister of Australia by accusing Israel of a lack of humanity.
'Shame on you, Anthony Albanese.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
41 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
Allies remember Pacific War 80 years on
With the enormous Ohio-class guided missile submarine in Brisbane, Sky News' Investigations Reporter Jonathan Lea has taken a deeper look at the reason for its visit. War games brought it down under – now allies are beginning to mark the 80th anniversary of Victory in the Pacific. All as the government awaits news confirming Washington will still sell Australia at least three Virginia-class attack submarines needed for the navy.
SBS Australia
41 minutes ago
- SBS Australia
Amid outcry over videos of emaciated Israeli hostages, Netanyahu asks Red Cross for help
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has requested the help of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to aid hostages in Gaza, as outrage built at videos showing two of them emaciated. Netanyahu said on Sunday he spoke to the ICRC coordinator for the region and "requested his involvement in providing food to our hostages and ... immediate medical treatment". The ICRC said in a statement it was "appalled by the harrowing videos" and reiterated its "call to be granted access to the hostages". In response, Hamas' armed wing said it would allow the agency access to the hostages but only if "humanitarian corridors" for food and aid were opened "across all areas of the Gaza Strip". The al-Qassam Brigades said it did "not intentionally starve" the hostages, but they would not receive any special food privileges "amid the crime of starvation and siege" in Gaza. Over recent days, Hamas and its ally Islamic Jihad have released three videos showing two hostages seized during the October 7 attack in 2023 on Israel that led to an escalation of the ongoing war. The images of Rom Braslavski and Evyatar David, both of whom appeared weak and malnourished, have fuelled renewed calls in Israel for a truce and hostage release deal. A statement from Netanyahu's office on Saturday said he had spoken with the families of the two hostages and "expressed profound shock over the materials distributed by the terror organisations". Netanyahu "told the families that the efforts to return all our hostages are ongoing", the statement said. Thousands rally in Tel Aviv Earlier in the day, tens of thousands of people had rallied in the coastal hub of Tel Aviv to call on Netanyahu's government to secure the release of the remaining captives. There was particular outrage in Israel over images of David, who appeared to be digging what he said in the staged video was his own grave. The videos make references to the dire humanitarian conditions in Gaza, where United Nations-mandated experts have warned a "famine is unfolding". Families of hostages gathered in Tel Aviv on Saturday to call for a ceasefire and hostage release deal, marking day 666 since the October 7 attacks. Source: AAP / Middle East Images Videos 'expose the barbarity of Hamas' EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said the images "are appalling and expose the barbarity of Hamas", calling for the release of "all hostages ... immediately and unconditionally". Kallas said in the same post on X, "Hamas must disarm and end its rule in Gaza" — demands endorsed earlier this week by Arab countries, including key mediators Qatar and Egypt. "Large-scale humanitarian aid must be allowed to reach those in need," she said. Israel has heavily restricted the entry of aid into Gaza, while UN agencies, humanitarian groups and analysts say that much of what Israel does allow in is looted or diverted in chaotic circumstances. Many desperate Palestinians are left to risk their lives seeking what aid is distributed through controlled channels. On Sunday, Gaza's civil defence agency said Israeli fire killed nine Palestinians who were waiting to collect food rations from a site operated by the United States and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) near the southern city of Rafah. There was no comment from the military. Five more people were killed near a different GHF aid site in central Gaza on Sunday, while Israeli attacks elsewhere killed another five people, civil defence spokesperson Mahmud Bassal said. 'Emaciated and desperate' Braslavski and David are among the 49 hostages taken during Hamas' 2023 attack who are still being held in Gaza, including 27, the Israeli military says, are dead. Most of the 251 hostages seized in the attack were released during two short-lived truces, some in exchange for Palestinians in Israeli custody. Israel has bombarded Gaza since Hamas' October 7 attack in 2023, in which more than 1,200 people, including an estimated 30 children, were killed and over 200 hostages taken, according to the Israeli government. More than 60,430 people have been killed in Gaza since October 7, according to the health ministry in Gaza. The October 7 attack was a significant escalation in the long-standing conflict between Israel and Hamas.
ABC News
41 minutes ago
- ABC News
Commitment to quality early childhood education and care is incompatible with the for-profit model - ABC Religion & Ethics
As the Australian community comes to grip with the atrocious allegations of child sex abuse in childcare centres in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland, extra attention has been paid to the role of the profit motive in facilitating abuse. Speaking on Insiders last week, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese acknowledged that some for-profit operators have put profit above children's safety but has reassured the community that there is no 'in principle' objection to for-profit operators in the childcare sector. The strategy on the part of the government has been to make it less attractive for these operators to put profit above children's interests by withdrawing funds from centres that don't meet quality standards, rolling out CCTV cameras across the country, as well as implementing mandatory child safety training for early education and care workers. We don't doubt that some of these measures can make it somewhat less attractive for for-profit operators to put profit above children's interests. The issue for the government is that it has now acknowledged that the profit motive can lead to abuse and neglect, and that operators must choose how much to prioritise children's interests over profit, or vice versa. By leaving the for-profit model intact, the government is simply making some choices less attractive than others. It is not making it the case that the very choice to put profit first is ruled out. The problem for Albanese is that a serious government would not even allow the choice between profit and children's interests to take place. To see why the profit motive in care is so problematic, consider babysitting. Imagine a babysitter who takes home somewhere between $30 and $60 per hour, depending on how much she cuts costs. If she feeds the child cheap and non-nutritious food, if she minimises her use of nappies and rash cream, and if she does a side-hustle from her phone while letting the child watch television, then she can take more money home. If she looks after the child well, she will take less because she must pay for the costs of decent care. But there is catch — if the child is abused and neglected, she will take home nothing. Even with the safeguard in place where abuse and neglect lead to no payment, it would be foolish to give a babysitter a financial incentive to cut corners and focus on jobs other than looking after the child. Most parents know this intuitively: that's why parents tend to buy their children's food and necessities for babysitters, rather than trusting babysitters to use the babysitter's own funds to buy these items. Even with the best of intentions, those motivated by profit will be tempted to cut corners. Yet that is precisely what is at the heart of the for-profit model in childcare: a strong financial incentive to do the bare minimum in order to put more money in the pockets of shareholders. The perverse incentives of profit As the recent allegations of abuse clearly demonstrate, sometimes the bare minimum will create the conditions for abuse. But there is also a more pervasive problem: doing the bare minimum leads to children being denied the fundamental interest in developing meaningful caring relationships with their educators. These are relationships between an educator and a child where the former is empathetic, genuinely concerned about how the child is developing, and who ensures that the child enjoys all the goods of childhood available in a high-quality childcare centre: carefreeness, exploration, friendship and play. These relationships require a robust commitment to care, which the profit motive inherently undermines. If organisational structures are oriented away from profit, educators are put in the best position to both protect children from abuse and neglect and create the conditions for them to enjoy meaningful caring relationships, quality time with their friends, and learning through playful exploration of their environment. But if organisational structures are oriented towards profit, educators are not put in the best position to both protect children from abuse and neglect and create the conditions for children to thrive. This is because profit in care creates an institutional culture of efficiency and cost-effectiveness on the part of care providers. After all, the more efficient and cost-effective, the more profitable. The status quo is not defensible When discussing the role of profit in childcare, the prime minister has also hinted that the issue is about feasibility. Because the train has already left the station, so to speak, we now must work with the system we already have, where most operators are for-profit. But this is not good enough. Suppose we realised that the way we have structured our roads leads to significantly more fatal crashes than is necessary. Would we just shrug our shoulders and let numerous people die unnecessarily? If the government is serious about universal early childhood education and care — both because of the role it plays in future educational attainment and because of how quality early education creates the conditions for children to thrive — then it needs to engage in serious reform in the sector. And this requires moving away from a for-profit model. It is time to transition towards a system where early education is provided by the government and by not-for-profit operators, and where all families have access to free early education in the same way they have access to primary and secondary schooling. Until the government understands that Australian children's interests are too significant to be in competition with the profit motive, we will see more cases of cases of neglect and abuse. We will also make it much more difficult for educators to create the best conditions for children to thrive. Luara Ferracioli is Associate Professor in Political Philosophy at the University of Sydney. She is the author of Liberal Self-Determination in a World of Migration and Parenting and the Goods of Childhood. Stephanie Collins is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Monash University. She is the author of The Core of Care Ethics, Group Duties: Their Existence and Their Implications for Individuals and Organizations as Wrongdoers: From Ontology to Morality.
