Phil Lynch of the Human Rights Law Centre has an op-ed in The Age criticising Tony Abbott’s Freedom Wars speech.
At least since the Holocaust the international community has also accepted that the right to freedom of expression carries with it ”special duties and responsibilities” and that speech that incites racial or religious hatred, discrimination or hostility should be prohibited.
So now for some examples:
Where, for example, was his indignation at parole conditions imposed on Aboriginal activist Lex Wotton, for whom it is a criminal offence to attend public gatherings and who is ”prohibited from speaking to and having any interaction whatsoever with the media”? Where was his outrage at section 132(1) of the Queensland Corrective Services Act, which makes it a criminal offence for a journalist to interview or obtain a written or recorded statement from a prisoner, including a person on parole in the community, without the written approval of correctional authorities?
Where was his critique of Melbourne’s lord mayor, Robert Doyle, who urged police to forcibly evict peaceful Occupy Melbourne protesters from City Square because they were ”disrupting business and community events”?
And where was Mr Abbott’s criticism of Premier Ted Baillieu, who reacted to a magistrate’s decision to dismiss charges against peaceful protesters targeting Max Brenner’s Chocolate Bar, by asking his attorney-general to consider whether there is a need for legislation to ban protests that ”interrupt the fair conduct of a business”?
Really? The right to speech allows one to say what they like but not do what they like. Inciting riots, being a criminal, trespass, and operating anti-Semitic picket lines do not constitute speech. They constitute physical acts and usually violent physical acts.
Where is the undisputed proof of the righteousness of the left? Anyone seen it?
coz
10 Aug 12 at 9:32 am
More evidence that leftism is a mental illness…
Far left-wing bully Greg Barns threatens genuine Aborigine Bess Price with a legal lynching for pointing out that a white man is white. (Bolt).
C.L.
10 Aug 12 at 9:33 am
Really? The right to speech allows one to say what they like but not do what they like. Inciting riots, being a criminal, trespass, and operating anti-Semitic picket lines do not constitute speech. They constitute physical acts and usually violent physical acts.
Yes Mr Davidson, correct and yet there is more to it, Bolts case in point:
Freedom of expression is an essential component of a tolerant and pluralistic democracy. Section 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act exempts from being unlawful, offensive conduct based on race, where that conduct meets the requirements of section 18D and may therefore be regarded as a justifiable exercise of freedom of expression.
Bolt’s problem, says the judge, stem from:
… the manner in which the articles were written, including that they contained erroneous facts, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language and that as a result, the conduct of Mr Bolt and HWT is not justified in the manner required by section 18D of the RDA.
So I guess that means dont write lies, truth in journalism seems like a reasonable aim.
Xevram
10 Aug 12 at 9:40 am
For “the international community” read “the coercive leftwing utopians” who populate the agencies of the UN and the local branches of the worldwide grievance industry.
Poor Old Rafe
10 Aug 12 at 9:41 am
And thus ends Xevram’s internet career.
C.L.
10 Aug 12 at 9:41 am
So I guess that means dont write lies…
And thus ends Xevram’s internet career.
LOL good one CL, fact is you havent found any, so maybe that reveals your comment as being a………mistake.
Xevram
10 Aug 12 at 9:46 am
Laws against antisemitism, or Judeophobia as I prefer (can judeophobic Arabs be antisemites?), are no better than any other speech control laws. That the picket lines were judeophobic should be of no relevance in law, disgusting though the attitudes on display were.
CountingCats
10 Aug 12 at 9:46 am
Also: could you look up ‘apostrophe’ and learn how to use them?
C.L.
10 Aug 12 at 9:47 am
Well, the interesting thing about anti-semitism is that it is now preponderantly a left-wing phenomenon. The modern European left has more in common ideologically with Adolf Hitler than, say, David Duke.
C.L.
10 Aug 12 at 9:49 am
The difference between speech and expression is too subtle for some. It’s the difference between telling someone you don’t like what they do or just punching their lights out for the same reason. The sort of stuff people are meant to have grown out of after early primary school.
Biota
10 Aug 12 at 9:50 am
Xevram – small problem. Even the Attorney-General now admits there are problems with the Bolt case.
Sinclair Davidson
10 Aug 12 at 9:53 am
Just to repeat: the Australian left now wants to jail Aborigines for ‘vilifying’ whites.
C.L.
10 Aug 12 at 9:54 am
Counting Cats – I agree the fact that anti-Semites were running a picket line it irrelevant at law – it is the violence implicit in the picket that is the problem – I emphasised the anti-Semitism to contrast with the Holocaust example in the article. Invoking the Holocaust and supporting anti-Semitism in the one article shows an extraordinary lack of self-awareness.
Sinclair Davidson
10 Aug 12 at 9:56 am
The European left has always been more aligned with the National Socialists than European conservatives, which are a rare occurence. Case in point : Sarkozy and Cameron, both of which are supposed to be ‘conservatives’. Both a big government lefties who never met a central plan they didn’t like.
brc
10 Aug 12 at 9:56 am
Yep you are right Mr Davisdon, and good to see that the AG is on the case.
My point is aimed more at the issue of truth in journalism, the Judge in the Bolt case had an issue with that as well, hence the quote.
This one is interesting as well…. http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/free-speech-debate-is-coloured-by-hypocrisy-20120809-23×53.html
Neither Bolt nor his paper contested the factual claims put to the court by the claimants in the s18C case. Their claims to have always identified as Aborigines and been brought up as such were not challenged in the court. The newspaper and its journalist did not appeal the decision or seek the High Court’s view about the right to freedom of speech and whether the articles were protected by the implied constitutional right to free speech on political or governmental affairs, as discovered in the case of David Lange v the Australian Broadcasting Commission.
Xevram
10 Aug 12 at 10:05 am
“truth in journalism seems like a reasonable aim”
Perhaps a Ministry of Truth is required?
Poor Old Rafe
10 Aug 12 at 10:08 am
Xevam, who would you nominate for the Minister for Truth on the Gillard front bench?
Honestly!
Poor Old Rafe
10 Aug 12 at 10:10 am
Bolt mixed the maternal and paternal lineages of a fake Aborigine bludging off the grievance industry. Who cares? He has been gagged.
.
10 Aug 12 at 10:11 am
What an excellent idea. Let them decide what is a “truth” ’cause they’d know for sure and would thus ensure “truth” in opinion. Stalin would be proud.
Gab
10 Aug 12 at 10:13 am
I don’t think the anti vilification laws are a good idea but I think Abbott is being a bit opportunistic here. After all he’s supportive of more powers to the regulator to pull down content he believes to be offensive from facebook.
Chris
10 Aug 12 at 10:19 am
Actually, he’s only been gagged by his employer.
His original articles are still on the ‘net.
The problem seems to be that his sloppy research has led to News Ltd deciding that he is too much of a risk to let him wade into the field again.
Bolt is entirely free to open his own blog on Blogger and write about the topic, and take the risk himself if he is again caught out being sloppy with facts and offending someone in the manner he chooses to address the issue.
steve from brisbane
10 Aug 12 at 10:21 am
There I was thinking Captain Marvex was a green Green, an honest environmentalist. Turns out he’s just another lying, cheating watermelon c***sucker with a degree in economic irresponsibility. You are now officially a troll and you’ll be treated as one from here on if you want to spread your poisonous bilge at the Cat. Fuck off.
Tom
10 Aug 12 at 10:23 am
“truth in journalism seems like a reasonable aim”
Perhaps a Ministry of Truth is required?
Good idea POR but maybe not neccessary. Canada has some interesting stuff, including a law that talks about truth in journalism, see ……. http://www.article19.org/pages/en/false-news.html
Lots more around to read on this, but well big day at work, see ya round.
Xevram
10 Aug 12 at 10:24 am
Like stray cats, if you keep feeding the trolls they keep coming back for more.
Gab
10 Aug 12 at 10:24 am
Steve in biblical terms you are obsessed with the mote of minor errors in Bolt’s eye while ignoring the beam of racism and contempt for basic freedoms in the eyes of the left.
Good to have you on the site to be constantly reminded.
Poor Old Rafe
10 Aug 12 at 10:25 am
Tom, Bolt is taking comments again. Why don’t you take your deranged angry act over there?
steve from brisbane
10 Aug 12 at 10:26 am
There I was thinking Captain Marvex was a green Green, an honest environmentalist. Turns out he’s just another lying, cheating watermelon c***sucker with a degree in economic irresponsibility. You are now officially a troll and you’ll be treated as one from here on if you want to spread your poisonous bilge at the Cat. Fuck off.
Contempt felt, deservedly.
Sorry cant resist;
Tom, Is it your assertion/opinion/view that ‘truth in journalism’ is poionous bilge?
Xevram
10 Aug 12 at 10:28 am
I don’t think Tony Abbott is being opportunisit at all
There’s a lot of young, impressionable minds doing Facebook all the time. Certain inflammatory “offensive” material they need to be protected against.
They’re just kids and stuff can affect them, where an older person shrugs it off as stupid.
candy
10 Aug 12 at 10:29 am
@ POR re biblical terms:
And mix not truth with falsehood, nor conceal the truth (i.e. Muhammad Peace be upon him is Allahs Messenger and his qualities are written in your Scriptures, the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)) while you know (the truth) . (Chapter #2, Verse #42)
Book Reference :
[The Quran]
Comments :
Muhsin Khan Translation
Xevram
10 Aug 12 at 10:34 am
Xevram – I’m really struggling to understand the point you’re trying to make. There is no legal requirement that newspaper articles be error-free. Furthermore Roxon’s comment is quite damning – because either the law is then wrong or the judge made an error. She needs to explain which of these two events occurred. Perhaps the law is wrong and the judge made an error. So it seems to me that there is a 66% chance the Judge make a mistake . he should at least have to attend counselling with his superiors to improve his performance.
Sinclair Davidson
10 Aug 12 at 10:34 am
Bolt has been gagged Steve.
His employer was compelled to do so.
You totalitarian dolt.
It’s amazing you can take a shit and wipe your own arse.
.
10 Aug 12 at 10:34 am
Steve, you don’t think Bolt might have a commercial arrangement requiring his writings only be published on news ltd sites for example – you know, what a smart newspaper does to tie up their talent?
The more you post, the more you show, how little you know.
pete m
10 Aug 12 at 10:36 am
An observation from Steve, who two years ago predicted that a ‘bribery scandal’ would lead to Tony Abbott’s resignation.
Bolt’s articles were substantively true and indubitably in the public interest.
Thanks to the left’s overreach and natural fascism, 18c will now be trashed by an Abbott government.
On that day, a nation will rejoice and say in unison: Bolt won.
C.L.
10 Aug 12 at 10:36 am
This bodes poorly for White Aborigines.
.
10 Aug 12 at 10:36 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMVc0IbtyAQ
C.L.
10 Aug 12 at 10:38 am
Oh no, think of the kids!
They also read newspapers and newspaper websites, perhaps even Bolt’s blog. No reason that facebook is special in this respect. And Abbott was asked about this recently in the context of the Aboriginal Memes facebook page which is not a bullying directed at a specific person. There’s no practical difference between that content being published on facebook or a news website or a dead tree publication
Chris
10 Aug 12 at 10:39 am
Xevram – I’m really struggling to understand the point you’re trying to make. There is no legal requirement that newspaper articles be error-free. Furthermore Roxon’s comment is quite damning – because either the law is then wrong or the judge made an error. She needs to explain which of these two events occurred. Perhaps the law is wrong and the judge made an error. So it seems to me that there is a 66% chance the Judge make a mistake . he should at least have to attend counselling with his superiors to improve his performance.
Yeah sorry Mr D, I am not expressing myself very well. Truth has a weight of it’s own, lies beget more lies. So the whole debate about freedom of speech, honesty in reporting, the separation of fact from opinion, media ownership; it all has relevant interest for me.
Although I often disagree with PM Gillards point of view, I think her allusion to and comments about convergence are important, at least they promote debate.
Xevram
10 Aug 12 at 10:46 am
I see nothing wrong with Roxon suggesting that the Bolt case is one of the less extreme examples of the type of conduct that could be caught by 18c, but you don’t always go amending legislation on the basis that some breaches of it are less worthy of condemnation than others.
Thus, you get findings of guilt on quite serious offences sometimes, but with no conviction recorded. That’s not a reason per se to amend the legislation.
steve from brisbane
10 Aug 12 at 10:47 am
We all have an interest in honesty – as you know we’re running a broken promise campaign.
Sinclair Davidson
10 Aug 12 at 10:48 am
CL, lol on the youtube link.
Is it your contention that a position cannot change in light of new and better information? A lot of examples for that.
Semantics can work as well, like what was it, Not a “core” promise.
So is a price on carbon different to a tax on carbon?
Xevram
10 Aug 12 at 10:50 am
“They also read newspapers and newspaper websites, perhaps even Bolt’s blog. No reason that facebook is special in this respect.”
No, Chris, young kids don’t read newspapers and political websites.
They take it all from Facebook just about – it’s a way of life for kids now.
candy
10 Aug 12 at 10:50 am
The totalitarian left desperately wants a government censor appointed to control what can and cannot be published in the Australian news media because it knows it controls academia which would be gifted that power under Finkelstein. Academia is an anathema to freedom of speech, a free press and truth in media because its celebrities are leftist fascists. That includes the extremists (Symons, Ricketson, etc) who are currently attempting to destroy the credibility of journalism education and who are generally despised by the news industry.
Tom
10 Aug 12 at 10:52 am
I know kids who do read content from news websites, though more so when its linked from facebook. But whether its on facebook or not I don’t think the anti vilification laws are justified. And they would need to continue to exist in some form or another to allow the regulator to pull down content.
I kind of doubt legislation would be able to distinguish between a website like facebook and a news oriented one, especially as the news increasingly embrace social media and user generated content.
Chris
10 Aug 12 at 11:11 am
What a load of PoMo nonsense.
.
10 Aug 12 at 11:28 am
Is it your contention that a position cannot change in light of new and better information?
ella
10 Aug 12 at 11:50 am
PoMo= Post Modernism.
So Dot you are saying that you have no interest or belief in Post Modernism?
Postmodernist thought often emphasizes constructivism, idealism, pluralism, relativism, and scepticism in its approaches to knowledge and understanding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism
Xevram
10 Aug 12 at 11:50 am
…oops, the quote should be the first sentence.
ella
10 Aug 12 at 11:52 am
Those who bemoan Bolta not appealing should pause and ask why the 9 Koori litigants did not ask for compensation!
I’ll bet that neither side wanted the matter to go to another costly stage
Jazza
10 Aug 12 at 11:56 am
Postmodernism as an academic discipline is like a late night re run of poorly scripted bolloywood cum porn movie with ugly actors, no production values and no plot.
.
10 Aug 12 at 11:58 am
@ella
Xevram, how do you know when enough information is enough, without an ongoing commitment to free speech?
Good question and the answer is I dont always know, so I keep seeking more and better infromation to inform my own balanced decision making.
I read one time about the flat earth society who said that they still believed that the earth was flat, but that didnt mean it was not round. LMAO on that one.
I do have a committment to free speach, I just have absolute disrespect for lies and disinformation, plus of course a natural contempt for rude, abusive and disrespectful people.
con·tempt
the feeling with which a person regards anything considered mean, vile, or worthless; disdain; scorn.
Xevram
10 Aug 12 at 12:00 pm
You’re not for free speech at all – you are dishonest, and it is insulting you try that dishonesty and insult to our intelligence here.
.
10 Aug 12 at 12:05 pm
Linked at Bolt today and relevant:
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/the-minority-victim-value-index.html
Highlights the relativism of the left in their defence of so called rights.
Biota
10 Aug 12 at 12:08 pm
The concept is not “freedom of speech” so much as “freedom of expression”. So this is redundant:
Those things are “speech” for all intents and purposes. Otherwise you could legitimately say that the Bolt case was not a breach of free speech because Bolt wasn’t “speaking”, he was “writing”.
Major Karnage
10 Aug 12 at 12:09 pm
“a commitment to free speach” and “better infromation” and no apostrophes. Seems like a commitment to basic education in spelling and grammar would be a better investment.
mareeS
10 Aug 12 at 12:09 pm
It doesn’t matter anyway.
Abbott will destroy 18C.
I hope Greg Barnes gets the bollocking he deserves. A rich powerful white man and lawyer threatening an Aboriginal woman because she mildly rebuked a white man. It would be hard to imagine anything more racist.
C.L.
10 Aug 12 at 12:11 pm
If Bess Price was a Labor candidate there’d be no talk of taking her off to the Troof Council and vilifying her for expressing an opinion.
Gab
10 Aug 12 at 12:14 pm
Free speech for all provided you have the wherewithal to prove in court (after meeting all necessary fees and charges) that you were not lying.
So, free speech for the rich.
Brilliant.
And that means your outrage and offence must be given the force of law, of course. Making laws to privilege some people’s moral outrage over others is what a modern liberal democracy is all about!
Here’s the thing. I am at least as angry, smugly superior, or whatever emotional state you appeal to for your sense of moral supremacy, over the curtailing of free speech as you are over lies. By what metric are you proving the superiority of your moral outrage over mine?
Next, you say “lies are harmful and of no value etc, so should be illegal as a form of informational vandalism” and I say “contentious, new, minority and controversial opinions cannot be reliably distinguished from lies”. Therefore curtailing any free speech that doesn’t have the means to defend itself in court is informational vandalism as well. Again, what’s your metric? What’s your objective reason for your ideals to be given the force of law?
wreckage
10 Aug 12 at 12:16 pm
I just have absolute disrespect for lies and disinformation, plus of course a natural contempt for rude, abusive and disrespectful people.
Wreckage, it means just what it says and no more than that, it is my view, my opinion. My little bit of free speech.
Next, you say “lies are harmful and of no value etc,
Sorry you are mistaken, I have not said that anywhere.
But I think you would agree that generally speaking lies are harmful.
By what metric are you proving the superiority of your moral outrage over mine?
I have no feeling what so ever of any moral superiority or outrage. I have nothing to prove at all, I just have a point of view and an opinion, no more no less, no better that yours or anyone elses, just perhaps different.
Xevram
10 Aug 12 at 12:24 pm
Which is in total contradiction to your previous statement about “truth”. But then you lefties are renown for your hypocrisy.
Lefty battle cry: Free speech for me not for thee.
Gab
10 Aug 12 at 12:30 pm
But of course you should be free to put your point of view. Mr Bolt, on the other hand …
Matt
10 Aug 12 at 12:32 pm
Won’t he need a majority in the senate to do that which is possible, but certainly not guaranteed?
Chris
10 Aug 12 at 12:32 pm
Stop lying Xervam.
.
10 Aug 12 at 12:32 pm
May as well tell him to stop breathing.
Gab
10 Aug 12 at 12:33 pm
I am predicting a DLP cross bench if not a Coalition majority.
My locale has a DLP membership of 1/200.
They haven’t been on the ballot here in 40 years.
.
10 Aug 12 at 12:34 pm
Based on the number of ‘isms alone, you know its bullshit.
duncan
10 Aug 12 at 12:36 pm
Dot,
Now I’m confused. Xevram believes the truth is relative and absolute both at the same time.
ella
10 Aug 12 at 12:36 pm
Interesting thing I noted with the pomo comments over at Vexnews; those disturbed that actions have consequences felt quite righteous about being able to threaten legal consequences due to do called ‘discrimination’.
Which brings up the obvious question regarding why this is being limited to 18C? Is there anything of value in the rest of it?
Driftforge
10 Aug 12 at 12:36 pm
Ella – what did I say about postmodernism?
Postmodernism as an academic discipline is like a late night re run of poorly scripted bolloywood cum porn movie with ugly actors, no production values and no plot.
Hence why truth is relative and absolute at the same time. It’s 100% bullshit.
.
10 Aug 12 at 12:39 pm
http://www.qbd.com.au/products/l/4978/9780522854978.jpg
C.L.
10 Aug 12 at 12:46 pm
What a cracker of a woman Bess Price is.
Viva
10 Aug 12 at 12:50 pm
Well I’m a critic of Santamaria but he did good overall. What a better time to raise him from the dead than to defeat the communists in the Australian Greens and ALP? Nope, there couldn’t be. A lazarus with a triple bypass and a full catholic burial.
The numbers are alarming. From nothing to 0.5% of the population claiming DLP membership? They could register their membership in Launceston alone on that basis and be a federally registered party with the AEC…
That’s astounding. Dot Town is majority Catholic which is unusual – but these numbers mean something BIG is up.
Abbot ought to auger the numbers well and try to literally wipe out the ALP and Greens. He has this opportunity if he can read the changing order of battle.
The ALP have ratfucked itself by no longer being a working party but a socialist party of people making their minds up for workers.
IMO, it’s amazing the DLPers who went back into the fold let a commo like Gough or Cairns get up at all.
We might be seeing a paradigm shift or history in the making, folks.
.
10 Aug 12 at 1:00 pm
“I emphasised the anti-Semitism”
How do you know it was anti-Semitism?
Jarrah
10 Aug 12 at 1:20 pm
I have nothing to prove at all, I just have a point of view and an opinion, no more no less, no better that yours or anyone elses, just perhaps different.
Gab, we have had this discussion before and it is the sanme rules, if you believe the ebove is a lie, then it is up to you to establish that.
Incidentally it was alleged that I was a PoMo, all I have done is provide a link to the Wiki interpretaion of that.
Xevram
10 Aug 12 at 1:30 pm
Xevram,
So there is no right or wrong – just difference?
ella
10 Aug 12 at 1:42 pm
It’s clear that neither is the case. Bolt or News could have appealed and didn’t, most likely because the law was correct and the judgement impeccable.
Bolt has been humilated even by his own employer which has done nothing to support him. My view is that they came close to sacking him. Ironically he was probably saved by Julia Gillard’s Fair Work Act.
hammygar
10 Aug 12 at 1:49 pm
Okie dokie, so do we ban the Koran or not? Listening to the Left banging on, you’d presume they would ban the Koran.
Fisky
10 Aug 12 at 1:52 pm
Kero
Bolt didn’t lose the case, you fucking moron. Mordy didn’t cite Bolt for making racist comments which is what the white 9 were looking for. He was found guilty of making errors.
So there would really be no case to take on appeal.
Go light the match you moron. i very much doubt even you mother would miss you.
JC
10 Aug 12 at 1:54 pm
Postmodernist thought often emphasizes constructivism, idealism, pluralism, relativism, and scepticism in its approaches to knowledge and understanding.,
Postmodernism thought often emphasises lego, ikea, multiple choice questions, relatives, and scientology in its approaches to bullshit and confusion.
Dead Soul
10 Aug 12 at 1:55 pm
This article by Richard ackland this morning pretty well scuttles the Bolt et al arguments.
Bolt’s carry-on since his conviction is just so childish. Thank you Richard for clarifying this issue. It says it all.
hammygar
10 Aug 12 at 1:57 pm
Another try.
hammygar
10 Aug 12 at 1:59 pm
Did Ackland’s article call for the Koran, which incites violence and discrimination, to be banned or not? If it didn’t, then he is the one being hypocritical, not Bolt.
Fisky
10 Aug 12 at 2:00 pm
Yes, that’s right. As the Left made clear at the time, Bolt was done for “getting your facts wrong in a newspaper”. As the Left are axiomatically wrong about everything (and often dangerously so), it follows that a ban on Leftism is required by the RDA.
Fisky
10 Aug 12 at 2:02 pm
Dick Ackland has it about right, Kero. He just doesn’t know it.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/free-speech-debate-is-coloured-by-hypocrisy-20120809-23×53.html#ixzz2372MQpng
Are you still dreaming of bashing a hammer into the back of rightwingers skulls… when they’re aren’t looking of course?
JC
10 Aug 12 at 2:04 pm
Your longhand link is the same as my much more elegant hyperlink, JC. Try it sometimes. I assume JC stands for the second of the trinity?
hammygar
10 Aug 12 at 2:13 pm
If you want an idea of how poisonous some PoMo and related themes are then consider the incredible damage done in France by the dominance of Lacan in psychoanalysis. The tragedy of their refusing to adopt a behaviorist approach to treating autism should be criminal because the behaviorist approach, relying heavily on Skinner’s “Verbal Behavior” is to date by far the most successful approach in helping autistic children(So FU Chomsky, you never understood VB which is why Skinner never bothered to respond to your nonsense). In the 1950′s Lacan recast Freudian ideas and so resurrected his basic approach at a time when academia had mostly abandoned Freudian approaches to mental illness. The damage to French autistic children has been immense.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/health/film-about-treatment-of-autism-strongly-criticized-in-france.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/autism-and-french-psychoanalysis.html
Dead Soul
10 Aug 12 at 2:13 pm
Kero
The long hand link is automatically pasted below any excerpt you dribbling clown. They are always easy to recognize with the “read more” sticker.
JC
10 Aug 12 at 2:17 pm
Part two of the response to Sasha Burden’s smear of the Herald Sun is up at Vexnews. It appears that her “article” is passive aggressive workplace bullying, not an example of ‘free speech’ after all. Who’d have thunk it?
Cold-Hands
10 Aug 12 at 2:21 pm
@ella
So there is no right or wrong – just difference?
Yes of course there is right and wrong, and within all of that there is difference. Context is the key, is it wrong to lie, murder, steal and cheat, of course it is.
Does that work in a state of war? No it doesnt, because the war is leaglly sanctioned and maybe you are lying, murdering and cheating with a legal licence, to serve and protect. Sorry ella I dont put this well and am not so good at expressing myself, other posters here will have their own views, that is their ‘difference’, they are free to have it and express it, that is their right to express an opinion.
Xevram
10 Aug 12 at 2:21 pm
If you want an idea of how poisonous some PoMo and related themes are then consider the incredible damage done in France by the dominance of Lacan in psychoanalysis.
PoMo is merely a symptom. You need to diagnose the cause, good doctor.
dover_beach
10 Aug 12 at 2:23 pm
DB,
I have no idea of the cause. I have always been mystified by the popularity of PoMo etc. Can you help?
Dead Soul
10 Aug 12 at 2:26 pm
Very interesting informative contribution, John.
Thanks
JamesK
10 Aug 12 at 2:36 pm
PoMo is incredibly seductive to lazy intellectuals because any opinion has to be taken as seriously as one backed up by research or data. In, say, discussing the work of an author, auctorial intent is not privileged in any way, so that the uninformed opinion of a casual reader is of equal weight with that of the originator of the work. There are no canonical works or absolute truths and the pernicious philosophy is even infiltrating science- as “climate science” demonstrates.
Cold-Hands
10 Aug 12 at 2:37 pm
Dead Soul, part of the problem was the failure of the major schools of analytical or non-Continental philosophy – logical positivism, logical empiricism, linguistic analysis, Witgenstein stage II. A powerful subsititute was available, at least since 1935 in the form of Popperian critical rationalism but it did’nt get a serious following. Don’t get me started!
Poor Old Rafe
10 Aug 12 at 2:38 pm
Poor Geraldine – When you fail to disguise your bias, at least interview guests that may support your views. Geraldine tries several angles and none worked for her. This was cringeworthy! Final (desperate) shrill comments at 7.07 are gold
jules
10 Aug 12 at 3:00 pm
I have no idea of the cause. I have always been mystified by the popularity of PoMo etc. Can you help?
DS, this would be a good introduction. It’s a very good overview of the last 2500 years of philosophy from a staunchly realist (Aristotelian-Thomist) perspective. Anthony Kenny positively reviewed it in the Times Literary Supplement last year, July 22; and there’s another good review in the Review of Metaphysics (62. 4 (Jun 2009): 926-928).
dover_beach
10 Aug 12 at 3:01 pm
Thanks Cold Hands, Poor old Rafe, and Dover Beach.
Your link is incredible DB. Given our previous discussions my recent thinking will astound you … I have just finished reading “Brain Wars” a text by a neuroscientist wherein he argues that there is plenty of evidence that we more than just this body. I’m currently going down this road because I think most scientists make a fundamental logical error. They assume that all behavior can be reduced to biology but given we have very little understanding of human behavior how can we maintain the validity of that assumption?
In a previous discussion on this issue you appeared somewhat mystified at my suggestions regarding other approaches to understanding “the transcendent”(mystical experiences, near death experiences, out of body stuff etc). I suspect you thought I was being sarcastic but far from it. One reason I don’t like the New Atheists is because I think they are not being logical but ideological. I repudiate the concept of a “scientific world view”, I think that is nonsense. It is why I have always preferred being agnostic.
Dead Soul
10 Aug 12 at 3:09 pm
DS, Feser also has a book on philosophy of mind. If you get to read TLS, which I very highly recommend, you will see that the idea of the soul as distinct from the body is a modern idea inaugurated by Descartes. Aquinas, and thus, Thomists, consider the soul simply the substantive form of the body. It’s one of those books that you will finish and then simply start to re-read; it’s that good and the material that interesting.
dover_beach
10 Aug 12 at 3:34 pm
Is agnosticism the belief that we simply don’t know?
Driftforge
10 Aug 12 at 3:34 pm
That Geraldine video was priceless. A comprehensive Leftist beclowning and intellectual decapitation. That American chick kicked ass.
Fisky
10 Aug 12 at 3:36 pm
If you take the trouble to read the bolt case then you will see that the interpretation put on the Act is at the worse end of the spectrum and that it was all about the errors was crap. There was a long thread on troppo for anyone who wants to look it up.
The problem with 18C and 18D is the interpretation. Such legislation makes Judges the arbiters of some pretty fine distinctions.
Quite a different thing from picket lines, which are not free speech but a threat of violence against people acting lawfully.
Pedro
10 Aug 12 at 4:53 pm
Xevram on any subject .
Splatacrobat
10 Aug 12 at 5:03 pm
Great clip, jules. She really had her arse handed back to her on a plate.
Catfeesh?
10 Aug 12 at 7:02 pm
I am all for prohibiting hostile speech? class warfare, class envy, socialism and communism would be prohibited. elections would be boring.
social change would be so polite a processes. no wars on poverty or crime. the Left would have to be polite to Bush and Chaney.
Free speech has been on balance an ally of those seeking change. Governments that want stasis start by restricting speech.
Change in any complex system ultimately depends on the ability of outsiders to challenge accepted views and the reigning institutions. Without a strong guarantee of freedom of speech, there is no effective right to challenge what is.
One of the things that separate democracies from autocracies is our absolute right to propagate opinions that the government finds wrong or even hateful.
British Columbia has an extremely broad hate speech law that prohibits the publication of any statement that “indicates” discrimination or is “likely” to expose a person or group or class of persons to hatred or contempt.
Professor Sunera Thobani of the University of British Columbia faced a hate crimes investigation under this statute after she delivered a vicious diatribe against American foreign policy. Thobani, a Marxist feminist and multiculturalist activist remarked that Americans are “bloodthirsty, vengeful and calling for blood.”
The Canadian hate-crimes law was created to protect minority groups from hate speech. But in this case, it was invoked to protect Americans.
Jim Rose
10 Aug 12 at 7:45 pm
Good luck trying to make sense of a man hankering after utopia – ” discrimination or hostility should be prohibited.”
Christians believe that utopia existed before the fall – at the beginning of things. The man you quote,Jim, believes that if we ban vices like discrimination and hostility, and suppress free speech, utopia will exist at the end of things.
ella
10 Aug 12 at 9:28 pm
Hi-larious.
.
10 Aug 12 at 9:33 pm
if the righteous majority silences or ignores its opponents, it will never have to defend its belief and will forget the arguments for it. As well as losing its grasp of the arguments for its belief, Mill adds that the majority will in due course even lose a sense of the real meaning and substance of its belief.
What earlier may have been a vital belief will be reduced to phrases retained by rote. The belief will be held as a dead dogma rather than a living truth.
Beliefs held like this are extremely vulnerable to serious opposition when it is eventually encountered. They are more likely to collapse because their supporters do not know how to defend them or even what they really mean.
Mill’s has scenario involves both parties of opinion, majority and minority, having a portion of the truth but not the whole of it. He regards this as the most common of the three scenarios, and his argument here is very simple. To enlarge its grasp of the truth the majority must allow the minority to express its partially truthful view.
Three scenarios – the majority is wrong, partly wrong, or totally right – exhaust for Mill the possible permutations on the distribution of truth, and he holds that in each case the search for truth is best served by allowing free discussion.
Mill offered Christianity as an illustrative example.
By suppressing opposition to it over the centuries Christians have ironically weakened rather than strengthened Christian belief, and Mill thinks this explains the decline of Christianity.
Jim Rose
11 Aug 12 at 6:36 pm
“By suppressing opposition to it over the centuries Christians have ironically weakened rather than strengthened Christian belief, and Mill thinks this explains the decline of Christianity.”
That would only make sense if Christian belief was being replace with a different belief rather than un-belief.
Pedro
12 Aug 12 at 8:43 pm
coz:
Yep. Got your ‘righteousness of the left’ right here.
At Tol Slueng.
On public display and everything.
Mk50 of Brisbane
12 Aug 12 at 9:01 pm
I’m sorry Mark but you got this one totally wrong. Tol Sleung doesn’t exist and was invented by imperialists, according to South East Asia experts Gough Whitlam and Noam Chomsky.
Fisky
12 Aug 12 at 9:32 pm
That would only make sense if Christian belief was being replace with a different belief rather than un-belief.
Un-belief? I never knew the philosophy of materialism was un-belief.
dover_beach
12 Aug 12 at 9:50 pm