Michael Danby on free speech.
Labor MP Michael Danby, who is Jewish, said Mr Abbott’s promise might give the green light to bigoted groups such as the far-right LaRouchites and Adelaide Institute.
The Jewish community and many others had fought for these laws because racial hatred from some elements in the community was getting out of hand in mid-1990. ”We don’t want to go back to that darkness,” he said
He said that some people had been left uncomfortable with the Andrew Bolt decision. ”I know Andrew Bolt and he may have been misguided, but he is not a racist.”
But ”will this be the kind of Australia we might expect under Tony Abbott where laws are varied to suit mates, whether they be Clive Palmer, Gina Rinehart or Andrew Bolt?”
Mr Danby said Mr Abbott’s announcement was a mistake born of his listening ”too much to Sydney talkback radio. He should be listening to the rest of Australia too … Getting rid of those laws could again unleash bigotry on ethnic communities in this country”.
Here is what Andrew Bolt says:
I’m disappointed that Michael, a friend, could not speak more clearly against these laws and for the freedom to speak, and that he reduces this to mates politics. He should be much, much better than that.
He is not your friend. No friend would allow, or could even tolerate, such an injustice to persist.
You either support free speech or you do not – Danby does not. No excuses.
danby isn’t the only individual in the lobodomy pardee (or on the left) who does not support free speech. Such people are legion.
They are infuriating hypocrites, but I no longer expect any better.
Rabz
7 Aug 12 at 12:11 pm
This call for laws on speech is just laziness.
The battle against ethnic hate speech has largely been won for this generation. Mostly it was won by arguement and persuasion, as well as allowing the worst of the bigots to condemn themselves with their own mouths.
What people of good faith cant accept is having to continue the arguement for this, and following generations.
But if you want free speeh then you have to accept you will have to continue persuading people, forever.
The economic “right” have this same failing, its obvious excessive debt is bad, so we cease argueing against it, then act suprised when the counter arguement “free stuff at no cost” comes back again.
Its the same reason the disease of Maxist though keeps coming back, it argues well, even if its fairy story in reality.
thefrollickingmole
7 Aug 12 at 12:12 pm
Fairy stories will always have appeal. ‘Free stuff’ always draws a crowd.
Well said, Mole.
“Lest we forget. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”
I love those words. I wish more people would reflect on them.
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
7 Aug 12 at 12:23 pm
Danby is misguided and will have no one to support him when the left comes for him.
Mother G
7 Aug 12 at 12:43 pm
There seems to be quite a few “buts”. A decent commitment to free speech would involve getting rid of defamation laws and the various classification acts. And that would just be a start.
AJ
7 Aug 12 at 12:43 pm
To quote the greaaat Trey Parker and Matt Stone: “Freedom isn’t free, there’s a hefty fuckin’ fee”
Rococo Liberal
7 Aug 12 at 12:46 pm
Come on AJ, why don’t complete your useless argument with that old saw about ‘freedom of speech not allowing you to yell fire in a crowded cinema?’
Rococo Liberal
7 Aug 12 at 12:51 pm
There’s two issues that need to be discussed if talking about the Bolt case in the light of ‘freedom of speech’ and they are
a) Is multiculturalism a form of anti-white racism and if so, what do we want to do about it?
and
b) Have both (all) parties conspired over the last few decades to create a lawyers picnic environment, and if so, how do we go about dismantling this lawyers picnic.
coz
7 Aug 12 at 12:53 pm
Good questions Coz. Best time is midday for you I guess when you’ve yet to partake in the turps swilling. No seriously.
JC
7 Aug 12 at 12:59 pm
My point isn’t rhetorical. Both my examples are restrictions on free expression that society could easily do without and anyone who has a commitment to free speech should wish to see eliminated.
I am not a purist. Restrictions to do with public safety, fraud, threats of violence are all sensible.
AJ
7 Aug 12 at 1:00 pm
Abbott should not have made that speech. He should have waited until becoming PM before repealing the section. Now the government are going to claim that he supports violence against minority groups.
The only way to get rid of these laws is to Harper them – lie about your intentions, then get into office and throw them out.
Fisky
7 Aug 12 at 1:04 pm
Let them try. There is the Australia day race riot as a counterpoint.
Sinclair Davidson
7 Aug 12 at 1:07 pm
Andrew Bolt’s insistence to see “friends” within Labor – presumably to demonstrate to us his “open-mindedness” – is, admittedly, rather annoying. You’ve got no friends within Labor, Andrew. Not one.
roger
7 Aug 12 at 1:23 pm
LaRouche is ‘far right’?
The nutjob who runs on a Democrat ticket in the US?
He’s a conspiracy loon, but who knows if he’s right or left?
papachango
7 Aug 12 at 1:23 pm
He should support violence against minority groups. The ALP must be punished.
Infidel Tiger
7 Aug 12 at 1:25 pm
How many Australian writers and broadcasters maliciously railed against Aborigines and ethnics in the bad old days?
How often did that happen?
Apart from Arthur Calwell and Gough Whitlam, I can’t think of any celebrated examples.
C.L.
7 Aug 12 at 1:31 pm
Comment spaminated.
C.L.
7 Aug 12 at 1:32 pm
JC Good questions Coz. Best time is midday for you I guess when you’ve yet to partake in the turps swilling. No seriously.
More curtain twitching wowserism from pope JC.
coz
7 Aug 12 at 1:44 pm
Shakespeare had the right idea: ‘The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers’. Henry VI Part 2.
Cold-Hands
7 Aug 12 at 2:20 pm
Didn’t do that one at skewl.
I thought it was Mojo Nixon’s idea.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8ERGn0pClY
coz
7 Aug 12 at 2:42 pm
I tend to agree.
C.L.
7 Aug 12 at 2:44 pm
There’s two issues that need to be discussed if talking about the Bolt case in the light of ‘freedom of speech’ and they are
a) Is multiculturalism a form of anti-white racism and if so, what do we want to do about it?
and
b) Have both (all) parties conspired over the last few decades to create a lawyers picnic environment, and if so, how do we go about dismantling this lawyers picnic.
Correct Coz, it has already been talked about in a court in front of a Judge, with all parties having a say.
Part of the judgement was :”It didn’t just offend. It failed on all four grounds: it offended, insulted, humiliated and intimidated,”.
Freedom of speech is a guarantee so long as it does none of the above.
Xevram
7 Aug 12 at 2:49 pm
“Lest we forget. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”
I love those words. I wish more people would reflect on them.
Well said Lizzie B, you are right, we need to be eternally vigilant against those that gratuitously offend,insult, humiliate and intimidate. Of course you would include A Bolt in that.
Xevram
7 Aug 12 at 2:59 pm
By far the majority of Holocaust-denying websites are in the United States. Yet even the Anti-Defamation League is not trying to have the first amendment of the US Constitution changed to ban Holocaust-denying.
That’s because they know that free-speech is the great friend of the underprivileged, the downtrodden and minority groups. It is both lazy and ineffective to attack Holocaust-denying by using racial hatred laws. It is better to focus on education and persuasion.
I haven’t seen Danby advocate racial hatred laws in the USA. The free speech in the US has been the great friend of Jews everywhere. We need free speech in all countries, not just the US.
Samuel J
7 Aug 12 at 3:00 pm
Go fuck yourself and die, you vile piece of human filth.
Infidel Tiger
7 Aug 12 at 3:02 pm
Horse shit.
The state has no grounds to be persecuting people who are alleged to have “caused offence”.
The concept is ludicrous.
Rabz
7 Aug 12 at 3:06 pm
Go fuck yourself and die, you vile piece of human filth.
I noticed this, I am vigilant.
Am I offended – No, Insulted – No, humiliated or intimidated – No.
Am I Contemptuous – Yes.
Xevram
7 Aug 12 at 3:11 pm
Xevram sounds rather like a former ABC journalist and Walkley finalist.
Fisky
7 Aug 12 at 3:12 pm
Horse shit.
The state has no grounds to be persecuting people who are alleged to have “caused offence”.
The concept is ludicrous.
The point is that it was alleged and in court amongst other things proven to be the case.
The ‘grounds’ have already been made obvious.
Xevram
7 Aug 12 at 3:13 pm
Xevram sounds rather like a former ABC journalist and Walkley finalist.
Fisky, already filled in the questionaire and answered a lot of questions, so no not an abc journo or a walkley anything.
Xevram
7 Aug 12 at 3:15 pm
Actually, the Left are by far the worst offenders in that regard. I think, rather than trying to surgically ban these nasty byproducts of Leftism, we should just ban the Left. It’s much easier that way.
Fisky
7 Aug 12 at 3:18 pm
Xevram – Correct Coz, it has already been talked about in a court in front of a Judge, with all parties having a say.
Part of the judgement was :”It didn’t just offend. It failed on all four grounds: it offended, insulted, humiliated and intimidated,”.
Freedom of speech is a guarantee so long as it does none of the above.
No, what happened in that court was that a lawyer agreed with a couple of other lawyers (who pretended to be on opposing sides), presided over by a lawyer (pretending to be a neutral overseer) that a lawyers picnic was what all the lawyers approved of.
coz
7 Aug 12 at 3:18 pm
Once more – the concept of causing ‘offence’ should not be grounds for persecution by the state through legislation or statute, etc.
That peoples’ taxes and the court system’s resources are wasted on this idiocy is an absolute disgrace.
If you think there is any basis for the state persecuting people for ‘causing offence’ then you are a dangerous totalitarian idiot.
Rabz
7 Aug 12 at 3:19 pm
Gee, the UK must be a crime free paradise if this level of criminality attracts attention..
The message on Daniel Thomas’s Twitter denigrated the diving pair, neither of whom is known to be gay, after they lost out on medals at London Olympics synchronised men’s 10m diving this week.
It said: “If there is any consolation for finishing fourth at least Daley and Waterfield can go and bum each other #teamHIV.
Suspension
Arrest
Does the left, home of “rats” and payback really want to play this game to its stupid and destructive conclusion?
thefrollickingmole
7 Aug 12 at 3:30 pm
There is no sound you can make or word that you can say that will cause another person hearing that sound to suddenly cease to exist. Scientific fact.
Dan
7 Aug 12 at 3:36 pm
It boils my blood to hear you speak; but I would give my blood for your right to say it.
Let’s face it, freedom of speech is pure. And Danby’s a [naughty - we don't need it. Sinc - and yes I'm appreciating the irony.] By me saying that you can deduce two things: (1) Danby mighn’t be very nice and (2) I, too, am not very nice.
But at least you can make your mind up for yourself.
Lysander Spooner
7 Aug 12 at 3:52 pm
Abbott was apologetic about Menzies trying to ban the Communist Party. Do we unambiguously support free speech that promotes the ending of free speech and of democracy? The US never had any snse of conflict in this and I must say I agree.
Alan moran
7 Aug 12 at 5:06 pm
… against fools in our midst, Spandex. Get lost.
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
7 Aug 12 at 5:37 pm
Ok Sinc – sorry about dropping the “C bomb” but I’m glad you appreciate the irony
Lysander Spooner
7 Aug 12 at 5:40 pm
why give the fringe free exposure by outlawing what they say.
people used to burn the american flag because it was illegal and got TV coverage.
after burning the flag became legal, what is the point of burning the flag. many a fringe group lost free access to TV coverage.
let them flourish in all their dottiness. no one will pay them much attention.
Jim Rose
7 Aug 12 at 5:55 pm
Jim,
Well the dotty types actually got elected in 1933 and that did not go too well. Their left wing variant ws not that far away in some other places. Once they are in they play for keeps
Alan Moran
7 Aug 12 at 7:56 pm
This line is so vile and offensive I don’t know where to start.
“You’re free to say anything as long as it doesn’t hurt my feelings.”
As usual, a bright green brainwashed idiot thumps the table while the point of free speech goes whizzing overhead, never even close to connecting with brain tissue.
How would you feel if the concept of being an environmentalist was banned, and punishable by jailtime? How would you and your bedwetting fellow travellers like a stretch in the big house for putting animal welfare in front of humans? How about fines, punishment and possible execution for anyone who calls for ‘population control’ on the grounds of being an anti-human murderous zealot?
No? Not so keen on limits to free speech now?
Well, fancy that.
brc
7 Aug 12 at 7:57 pm
Or a military-grade laxative.
Abu Chowdah
7 Aug 12 at 7:59 pm
When I was in South Africa, in 1987, the father of the people I was staying with casually mentioned “and of course left-wingers like Terreblanche and the AWB.”
he let my incredulous look hang on my face for a few seconds before I realised I had walked into a family joke – he said, indicating a globe, “they have gone so far to the right they have kept going and become left.”
James in Melbourne
7 Aug 12 at 8:48 pm
offend, is not grounds for restricting anything, or segregation laws would still be in place in the American South.
insult, see above. Insult is just “to give offence” or “affront” which ultimately is nothing more or less than someone not liking it.
humiliate is public insult. Again, if people have a right to not be publicly affronted, segregation is supported.
and intimidate threats of violence have always been illegal, and should remain so.
wreckage
7 Aug 12 at 11:17 pm
Are you saying it should be illegal to sign a contract that stipulates secrecy? Because AFAIK public servants do so. Certainly plenty of employees in plenty of industries in the private sector do so.
wreckage
7 Aug 12 at 11:20 pm
I often have a silent laugh that Tony Abbott could sue the pants off lots of commentators and opposing Pollies from Milne and Brown to Gillard and Swan and minions, should HE take offense and get hurt feelings.
Wonder how old Mordy would rule then?
Jazza
8 Aug 12 at 11:33 am