George Brandis on Tim Wilson and the IPA

Tim Wilson was a longstanding member of the Liberal Party, but his principal role in public affairs has been as a policy director of the IPA, Australia’s oldest and, in the view of many, most influential political think tank which earlier this year celebrated its 70th anniversary. It is, in a sense, Australia’s original human rights organisation, since its raison d’etre is to defend freedom – the most fundamental of all the human rights.

More often than not, Wilson has taken a position in opposition to that of the Liberal Party. The list is long, but it includes issues as various as industry assistance, public broadcasting, renewable energy targets, tobacco packaging, industrial relations policy, health insurance, bikie laws and gay marriage, to name but a few.

To describe a person who has been an articulate public opponent of the Liberal Party on so many of the issues which have defined the politics of recent years as a Liberal Party “partisan” seems to me, with all due respect to van Onselen, to be absurd.

That’s in the Australian this morning.

George Brandis has come a long, long way in the past two years. To my mind the poor behaviour on the part of the left has played a huge role in Brandis’ evolution. As he writes today:

But some things never change, like the reaction of the claque of bilious pseudo-intellectuals who constitute what passes for a left-wing commentariat in this country. Mike Carlton, Catherine Deveney, Van Badham and their ilk were nothing if not boorishly predictable.

They and their followers unleashed a storm of hatred and bile against Wilson on social media, the like of which I have never seen. The irony that these people pose as the enemies of “hate speech” was lost on them, if not on others.

Hopefully he colleagues will come to the same realisation that Brandis has come to.

This entry was posted in Federal Politics, Freedom of speech, Hypocrisy of progressives, Take Nanny down. Bookmark the permalink.

102 Responses to George Brandis on Tim Wilson and the IPA

  1. .

    Brandis has written some excellent, stunningly accurate prose right there.

  2. Megan

    Mike Carlton, Catherine Deveney, Van Badham and their ilk were nothing if not boorishly predictable.
    They and their followers unleashed a storm of hatred and bile against Wilson on social media, the like of which I have never seen. The irony that these people pose as the enemies of “hate speech” was lost on them, if not on others.

    Bingo!

  3. steve

    Mike Carlton, Catherine Deveney, Van Badham and their ilk were nothing if not boorishly predictable.

    …….tip………iceberg

  4. srr

    srr

    #1127729, posted on December 30, 2013 at 7:29 am

    Sounds like Brandis spent the weekend at The Cat and knows What We Really Want!

  5. candy

    My impression is that Catherine Deveney sounds emotionally disordered, from the weird stuff she’s written about herself and others, she’s a bit over the edge. Mike Carleton is just deliberately malicious and untruthful about anyone conservative or associated with Tony Abbott going by his writings.
    PVO seems above those dingbats and just seems normal and better mannered. I think he has a much better reputation than them?

  6. Percy

    Kudos to Brandis, very well said.

  7. Infidel Tiger

    More often than not, Wilson has taken a position in opposition to that of the Liberal Party. The list is long, but it includes issues as various as industry assistance, public broadcasting, renewable energy targets, tobacco packaging, industrial relations policy, health insurance, bikie laws and gay marriage, to name but a few.

    How sad they disagree with him on these matters. What a cretinous organisation.

  8. One wonders why the Cat hasn’t been all over Brandis to replace Abbott. He’s the banner bearer for the libertarian wing of the party, after all.

    Oh wait, I forgot, the Cat is infested with big government statist conservatives.

  9. Rabz

    with all due respect to van Onselen, to be absurd.

    Enough with the respect, George – he ain’t known as von Wrongselen for nothing.

  10. Gab

    After a barrage of criticism directed at Abbott and the Libs, monty had this to say:

    m0nty
    #1126457, posted on December 28, 2013 at 11:08 pm

    Hasn’t taken you lot long to start eating your own. Carry on.

  11. Rabz

    the Cat is infested with big government statist conservatives.

    Care to name some, genius?

  12. Rafe

    Monty have you expressed a personal view about the hatespeech directed at John Howard, Tony Abbott and indeed any high profile opponent of the left and the ALP?

    Do you have a view about hatespeech in general?

  13. Rabz

    Monty have you expressed a personal view about the hatespeech directed at John Howard, Tony Abbott and indeed any high profile opponent of the left and the ALP?

    What – when hasn’t been busy engaging in it himself?

  14. srr

    No, I can not and will not ever believe that anyone who spends so much time here, can genuinely be so stupidly over the top ‘nice’:

    PVO seems above those dingbats and just seems normal and better mannered. I think he has a much better reputation than them?

  15. Sinclair Davidson

    m0nty – if you knew anything about politics you’d know (a) Brandis is a Senator, (b) the PM must be in the House of Representatives, (c) Brandis is from the soft-left of the LNP.

  16. cohenite

    The best description of the left in Australia is Don’s Party.

  17. Abu Chowdah

    Monty have you expressed a personal view about the hatespeech directed at John Howard, Tony Abbott and indeed any high profile opponent of the left and the ALP?

    Do you have a view about hatespeech in general?

    He’d have to deal with the issues instead of dissembling if he was to answer the above in good faith. Don’t hold your breath.

  18. .

    Sinclair Davidson
    #1127875, posted on December 30, 2013 at 10:38 am

    m0nty – if you knew anything

    Enough for me. Give this man a chair.

  19. Percy

    (b) the PM must be in the House of Representatives,

    Is this an absolute? Wasn’t Gorton sworn in as PM while still in the Senate?

  20. Louis Hissink

    Seems Peter Schiff also received a torrent of hate mail (email/social media) after his recent Walmart 15-15 YouTube effort.

  21. cohenite

    On another topic poor old Bunyip seems to be pretty down; does anyone know if he is ok?

  22. Sinclair Davidson

    Wasn’t Gorton sworn in as PM while still in the Senate?

    Yes and Yes. The PM must be in the lower house. Gorton had to resign his senate spot and contest a lower seat to remain PM.

  23. Rudiau

    On another topic poor old Bunyip seems to be pretty down; does anyone know if he is ok?

    Been thinking the same thing. It’s two months since his last post. Happy New Year Bunyip.

  24. Percy

    Thanks Sinc, couldn’t remember whether that was by choice or force

  25. Mr Brandis, if you’re reading…

    DE-FUND THEM NOW!

  26. Tom

    Bunyip’s fine, by all accounts. He’s just bored with writing. He also doesn’t get paid for his blog.

  27. Armadillo

    It’s reassuring that Brandis and Barnaby were both at Michael Smiths wedding. At least these pair seem to recognise the left for what they really are. And hopefully they will stop at nothing short of a full on attempt to totally destroy them. No doubt Smithy will be chewing their ears off to ensure that the “quest” he has doggedly embarked on over the past few years is ultimately sucessful.

  28. Rudiau

    He’s just bored with writing.

    Good, but bad for us.
    Hope he is making a killing hunting, fishing and golfing. All the best Bunyip.

  29. tomix

    Would have thought the likes of Mungo and Deveny would be applauding Tim Wilsons appointment.

    Nothing says “gay white male” more than a government sinecure.

  30. .

    You mean like, for example, Ray Cohn?

  31. Viva

    In pointing out that the origin of the concept of human rights resides in the American Declaration of Independence (i.e. that each individual must be free to pursue happiness in their own way) rather than in the UN Declaration (i.e. that a set of human rights laws exists that must be obeyed), Brandis has, in fact, highlighted the key difference between the right and the left on this issue, which ripples out to many other issues as well. The idea that human rights is embodied in the notion of freedom of the individual is anathema to the left. For them human rights are a way to control individual behaviour in a web of regulation. Human rights are to be used as an instrument of enforcement not not as an assertion of individual will and aspiration.

    No wonder the left are howling at this appointment and the interpretation of human rights that it represents.

  32. entropy

    In a nutshell viva. At least for the thinking lefties. For those that operate more on an emotional level, it is that he is a) not a victim; and b) not of their tribe.

  33. Joe Goodacre

    Brandis and Cory Bernardi are two of the stand out defenders of freedom at the moment.

    It’s for people like these two that some of us vote Liberal.

    Malcolm Turnbull (on almost every issue he’s on the Left) and Tony Abbott (to a lesser extent than Malcolm – i.e. NDIS, parental leave, restrictions on foreign investment, carbon policy) are unfortunately also part of the package.

  34. Joe Goodacre

    And as Sinclair ironically points out – the two names I’ve identified are both Senators…

    It seems it’s hard to get elected as a defender of freedom in the House of Reps in this country.

  35. Notafan

    claque of bilious pseudo-intellectuals

    Brandis calls a spade a spade. Brilliant.
    Don’t tell me Credlin has them all dancing to her tune.

  36. gbees

    absolutely spot on. time to expose more of these hypocrites. as for PVO he’s articulate but falls for rubbish all the time. if he spent some time doing real research on the issues reported he might make a better fist of it and win a few followers.

  37. Tel

    My opinion is that the Tim Wilson appointment was basic tit-for-tat strategy: that is to say I’m not going to cooperate because in the past you have not cooperated with me, and now any sense of mutual trust is gone.

    It is indeed hypocritical for George Brandis to push a blatant political appointee after complaining about this when the ALP and Greens have done as much. Mind you it is doubly hypocritical for the “Lefty Intellectuals” to complain about Tim Wilson when they are not even slightly without sin. So where do we go from here? Both sides are unwilling to do what they know is right, and both sides are brazen about the fact.

  38. srr

    Personally, I wish everyone would forget that Peta Credlin even exists.

    That there seem to be as many, keen to be seen to support and defend her, as there are those happy to be seen giving Abbott, Pyne, Brough and even Brandis a slapping, only makes me worry about Credlin’s ultimate, personal ambition, all the more.

  39. incoherent rambler

    Mike Carlton, Catherine Deveney, Van Badham

    Definitely of the left. This does not make those of different views “of the right”.

    I would classify Tim as somewhere not too far from the centre.

  40. Jannie

    PvO is about as entertaining as Q&A. His panties never seem to get a chance to dry out as he maintains his his whinge about the Libs and his faltering public predicitions. I think so anyway. I truth I havent listened to or read a word he says in years.

  41. tomix

    .

    #1127922, posted on December 30, 2013 at 11:36 am

    You mean like, for example, Ray Cohn?

    Do you mean Roy Cohn ?

    Is there a point to your comment?

  42. David

    In pointing out that the origin of the concept of human rights resides in the American Declaration of Independence

    Viva that is a short sighted view by Brandis. Some soon to be independent American [or group thereof] didn’t suddenly wake up and think, “Ah, all people have the right to be free [except our slaves of course] etc”.

    It was a process started centuries before and historians argue as to a “starting point” for the process. It took a long time and its progress was incremental in terms of just who “all people” were.

  43. SUBTERFUGE!

    Brandis is trying to divert attention from the fact that the Abbott government has been too spineless to abolish the AHRC.

  44. Gab

    The irony that these people pose as the enemies of “hate speech” was lost on them, if not on others.

    Well said, Senator Brandis.

    And also, lost to the hapless haters is that Wilson is the only one at the AHRC to defend the haters’ right to have the freedom to publicly spill their hate speech.

  45. Bushdoc

    As someone who knew George Brandis long before he entered the Senate, I can assure you the opinion he expresses now is exactly the same as he had back in the 1980′s and 90′s. In a former life, we had many a meal and long discussions late at night where libertarian views were expanded upon at length. Then as now he came from the small “l” end of the liberal party membership spectrum. He was then as now one of the true intellectuals of the party. I hope that he continues to write and discuss political philosophy. Sadly much of our political media class only write from the perspective of the political left whether social policy or economics.
    On a different but not unrelated matter, Peter Van Onselen, has spent many column inches, sinking the metaphorical boot in Senator Brandis. Sadly this reflects badly not on Senator Brandis but on the writer himself. Unfortunately for “PVO”, his relatively rapid rise from unknown university academic to media host and commentator, has gone to his head. He demonstrates the callowness of youth. Very certain of the righteousness of his opinions, he is disdainful of alternate viewpoints. Sadly I think it is unlikely that in the near term his thought processes will mature. Abstraction is yet to replace the concrete thinking that infests his developing intellect. I live in hope that he one day he will stop thinking he is intellectually superior to those he interviews and commentates upon. I am not holding my breath.

  46. Notafan

    It seems to me that it is far too easy to be swayed by the MSM’s constant negative portrayal of the current government. I have seen some cutting off of sentences on the ABC eg when Abbott said in response to a question I have done a good job , the rest of his sentence and the question were redacted to make him look a fool.
    We had the left complaining that his CFA stint was just a photo op and in the next breathe complaining that he was putting himself in danger and making things difficult for his security people.
    Some commentators of the left are just plain nasty and some subtle just damning with faint praise.
    Now that he has not started a war with Indonesia they have lost interest in that relationship, not to mention the issue of the ABC providing free advertising for the Guardian when no doubt the Indonesians could see the ABC as the Australian governments official broadcaster.
    I am so reluctant to take any media report on the government on face value, there is nothing I see that is straight old school reporting and variations of Have you stopped beating your wife?

  47. Andrew

    Good to see Brandis actually naming and shaming these grubs – hang them out, and the organisations they work for. (Van Badham is rapidly moving up my “most repugnant” list.)

  48. C.L.

    I still think Brandis is, at least partially, pulling a swifty.

    Notice how nobody is talking about abolishing the HRC anymore?

    Classic luvvie Liberal trick.

  49. Sinclair Davidson

    Notice how nobody is talking about abolishing the HRC anymore?

    Except everyone here at the Cat.

  50. Who voted for these people to run Australia with their propaganda and every dictator in the world ? No one . Your in power now Liberal , lead ,and fix this mess please . Giving all this money to these unelected betrayers of freedom of choice is outrageous . Don’t you just love the ratio of men to women in their group ? That says it all . We need an audit of everything they have spent . George Brandis is correct , get stuck into them , they rave on like lunatics .

  51. boy on a bike

    More often than not, Wilson has taken a position in opposition to that of the Liberal Party. The list is long

    What stuns me is that Brandis had to put pen to paper to explain this to the likes of Carlton, Deveny and Badpork. It shows how little they know of current affairs, and how poor their basic research skills are – and these are supposed to be “respected” journalists!

  52. Notafan

    Victoria Rollison and her lamer than lame open letters is another. They are not journalists. They don’t do research. Badham found one twitter comment about Occupy then indulged herself in her usual verbal diarrhoea.

    They are just ferals with a Macquarie.

  53. JohnA

    Sinclair Davidson #1127875, posted on December 30, 2013 at 10:38 am

    m0nty – if you knew anything about politics you’d know (a) Brandis is a Senator, (b) the PM must be in the House of Representatives, ( c) Brandis is from the soft-left of the LNP.

    And tactically, the PM can’t say as much as some of his Ministers, in the way they can. Ponder the flexibility afforded to Scott Morrison, Barnaby Joyce and Brandis to lay into their opponents, using words which would be considered too strong for the PM (because of the hateful invective which would arise thereafter).

    Yes, I know, sometimes even that gets too hot for the party as per Scott Morrison’s chastisement. But in the end he was vindicated by subsequent events (ie. the ploygamists and the beasties actually came out).

  54. JohnA

    Correction Scott Morrison = Cory Bernardi

  55. Viva

    Van Badham

    Where has this female suddenly sprung from? Sounds like a character from a rock opera or comic strip. Never heard of her until she was sent up by cut and paste a couple of days ago. Now she’s everywhere. Her five minutes are up.

  56. Andrew

    She managed to find a place in her years highlights for the vagina-knitter. After getting some misguided sympathy after Tim Blair’s hilarious Blairing of her sandwich tragedy, it’s great to see her publicly blasted as the hate-filled harpy that she is.

  57. Monty have you expressed a personal view about the hatespeech directed at John Howard, Tony Abbott and indeed any high profile opponent of the left and the ALP?

    Do you have a view about hatespeech in general?

    If they have broken any laws, I support them being prosecuted.

    Hate speech in general is merely to be frowned upon but no more. In some cases it should be prosecuted where it is likely to incite racial acts or inflame the public by propagating racist lies. Thankfully such cases are rare these days in Australia.

    In relation to the Bolt case, my position has always been that it was more suited to a defamation case and would have been fairly straightforward as such resulting in a huge amount of coin being extracted from HWT, but the nine involved decided to make it a symbolic gesture which did not involve payment of a large sum of money but instead hurt Bolt. As such, it was not much of a free speech issue, since Bolt continues to be the most broadly published communicator in the country. His speech has always been the most free of anyone. The effect of the case was to embarrass him. Embarrassment at saying something stupid and wrong is not a free speech issue.

  58. m0nty – if you knew anything about politics you’d know (a) Brandis is a Senator, (b) the PM must be in the House of Representatives, (c) Brandis is from the soft-left of the LNP.

    Re a and b, the recent Queensland state parliament experience teaches us that such minor details can be overcome with a modicum of organisation.

    Re c, I would dispute this characterisation. Brandis is from the Menzies school of the LNP, Abbott is from the Howard school. Now, of course one should be careful about projecting what Menzies would do in 2013 from what he did 60 years ago, but I think it’s fair to say that the Menzies school is more aligned with liberty, whereas the Howard school is more aligned with conservatism.

    Does this mean either is “soft left”? Libertarians would call conservatives “soft left” for their support of statist “nudge” programs like baby bonuses and other Big Australia middle class welfare. Conservatives would call libertarians “soft left” for their support of liberty in social issues like abortion and gay marriage.

    I don’t think such sobriquets are all that helpful in classifying politicians.

  59. Riverina Matt

    The effect of the case was to embarrass him.

    No. It was lawfare. The intent was not to embarrass Bolt but rather to run him through the legal process – with all the cost and inconvenience that entails. The intent was to intimidate others – without Bolt and News Limited’s resources – into remaining silent about issues the left and the Aboriginal industry don’t want discussed.

  60. Matt, he would have been far more out of pocket if they had done him for defamation.

  61. Greg James

    Thank you George.

    Thank you thank you thank you!

    And thank you for calling out that pretentious fool Van Onselem.

  62. Dan

    Re a and b, the recent Queensland state parliament experience teaches us that such minor details can be overcome with a modicum of organisation.

    Your joking right? Newman was The Lord Mayor. There is no upper house in QLD

  63. C.L.

    The intent was to intimidate others – without Bolt and News Limited’s resources – into remaining silent about issues the left and the Aboriginal industry don’t want discussed.

    Specifically, that left-wing whites (preponderantly academics) have captured the grant money and power in the “Aboriginal community” on the basis of claims to Aboriginality so ludicrous and laughable that Australian voters will not tolerate it anymore.

    The “trial” of Bolt was condemned by international press rights monitors. It was a national disgrace. Making matters infinitely worse, a Labor-aligned left-wing judge was placed in charge of the show trial, despite having a demonstrable conflict of interest given that Bolt is the country’s pre-eminent critic of the Labor Party. Not ONE SINGLE member of the Liberal Party used parliamentary privilege for its intended purpose: in this case, to call the whole episode corrupt and for the judge to recuse himself.

  64. johanna

    Great rewrite of history there Monty – they took this action against Bolt because they didn’t want to punish anyone financially? And, they would have had an assured win under the libel laws?

    Nobody has an assured win under the libel laws – it’s a lottery. It also allows investigation of the bona fides of litigants to an extent that quite a few of those people would have found uncomfortable – like their incomes, lifestyles and history. And it’s very expensive.

    They took the easy option, by claiming to be offended by something. Not defamed, just offended. Even then, Mordy Bromberg exceeded every known principle of common law by claiming to know things that were not in evidence.

    Pull the other one, it is still (faintly) playing Jingle Bells.

  65. Your joking right? Newman was The Lord Mayor. There is no upper house in QLD

    Newman wasn’t even in the parliament and he led the party in an election. If that is possible, shifting Brandis to a safe Liberal seat in the HoR is easy.

  66. The best outcome of the Bolt case (apart from the fact that his sloppy fact checking and paranoid bias was shown up for what it was) was this beautifully titled book.

  67. C.L.

    this beautifully titled book.

    The answer to which is “no.”

  68. Notafan

    I read that one beneficiary of a scholarship was 1/64th Aboriginal and only discovered this when he was in his 30s. Where was his disadvantage? There is another making a nuisance of himself in another place with a similar history. It wouldn’t matter if there didn’t happen to be kids in communities missing out on education, health , housing and other things most of us take for granted. The only people who can comment are Bess Price and Lake Tyres man who has a blog.
    Repeal 18c

  69. tomix

    The bottom line is that Bolts remarks were instrumental in a precedent being set for s18c.

    Proponents for limiting free speech may well be saying “Thanks a million, Andrew.”

  70. candy

    Andrew Bolt got a few facts wrong and perhaps should have been more circumspect in his articles, but how he was made to suffer for a professional error and to be labelled a “racist”. It must have been a very heavy burden at the time.
    There’s some topics too “dangerous” to discuss in Australia and that’s the lesson.

  71. Riverina Matt

    Specifically, that left-wing whites (preponderantly academics) have captured the grant money and power in the “Aboriginal community” on the basis of claims to Aboriginality so ludicrous and laughable that Australian voters will not tolerate it anymore

    Bolt’s main point remains valid – that programs ostensibly set up to aid people who genuinely suffer from prejudice, deprivation and neglect have been used by a group of people who on the whole have lived lives more priviliged than the average Australian.

    Who has had more of an opportunity at higher education – a white working class male from Melton or a middle class girl who attended St Clare’s Waverley?

  72. Carpe Jugulum

    this beautifully titled book.

    What utter bollocks.

    A priveleged individual who’s career was supported by the largess of the long suffering taxpayer and who discovers their aboriginality when it benefits them is a victim of a race crime?

    I think not.

  73. Rafe

    Hate speech in general is merely to be frowned upon but no more.

    You ducked the question Monty, do you frown on hate speech and vile abuse directed at conservatives?

  74. Notafan

    Exactly, more taxpayer’s money for the shameless when so many cannot even read.

  75. Of course Rafe, there is no justification for it no matter who the target.

  76. Tintarella di Luna

    It was a process started centuries before and historians argue as to a “starting point” for the process. It took a long time and its progress was incremental in terms of just who “all people” were.

    Well said David. In my view the recognition of human rights began about 5 centuries ago and their realisation took eons of time and oceans of blood – and yet by stealth those rights are being eroded by the politicians of today who regard those hard-won rights as an inconvenience if not a nuisance.

  77. Tintarella di Luna

    This article by George Brandis is a keeper.

    My favourite bit is:

    But some things never change, like the reaction of the claque of bilious pseudo-intellectuals who constitute what passes for a left-wing commentariat in this country. Mike Carlton, Catherine Deveney, Van Badham and their ilk were nothing if not boorishly predictable.

    They and their followers unleashed a storm of hatred and bile against Wilson on social media, the like of which I have never seen. The irony that these people pose as the enemies of “hate speech” was lost on them, if not on others.

  78. Andrew

    Andrew Bolt got a few facts wrong and perhaps should have been more circumspect in his articles, but how he was made to suffer for a professional error and to be labelled a “racist”. It must have been a very heavy burden at the time.

    I think Bolt is being rather precious. He correctly mocked highly paid Fauxboriginals – YTF does a uni have a Dep VC for that kind of stuff anyhow? A $30k grad position would seem more appropriate given the tiny fraction of the student population that are genuinely from an “indigenous” background.

    But so what? They call him on it and identify trivial errors of fact. Don’t contest it, just issue a half-arsed apology and contraction. They labelled him “racist” – so what? He has a newspaper column to say “I’m not” with. Calling out the Fauxboriginality industry (“Big Black”) – of course the lefties were going to call him racist! He gets called racist daily for opposing the 50,000 boatees that the R-G-R govt gifted us. And sexist for pointing out Gillard’s inept governing. It’s what these people do.

    I just don’t buy the “poor Bolt” routine – he’s paid well to be an object of leftist hate speech. That’s his job.

  79. Jessie

    Notafan @7.29
    Nice comment. I read and have added FYI, amend grammar and punctuation as you feel.

    I read that one beneficiary of a scholarship was 1/64th Aboriginal and only discovered this when he was in his 30s. Where was his disadvantage? There is another making a nuisance of himself in another place with a similar history. It wouldn’t matter if there didn’t happen to be kids and many adults that have no individual freedom, no individual rights, no private property rights which has resulted in stunted human potential within a constructed collective, in remote communities missing out on because a heinous and failed experiment operated by a cabal of pseudo-intellectuals, cultural and environmental voyeurs segregated many of these peoples’ freedom by designating economic, ethically and morally deplorable public funded research and policies in labour, and education, health, housing and other things well known now to have resulted in daily lived horrors, in contrast 97.5% of Australians enjoy these fundamental freedoms, choices and needs and most of us take these for granted. The only people who should be able to but can not comment are the many adults who have been particularly shaped and thus silenced by the aforementioned industry specific of culture, environment and academia, all other Australians with the exception of such people as Bess Price and Lake Tyres man who has a blog and are able to comment. The latter two individuals reflect 1 per 100,00 remote people and 2 per 18,594,881 census counted (over 4yrs).

    Repeal 18c

  80. Notafan

    I read that one beneficiary of a scholarship was 1/64th Aboriginal and only discovered this when he was in his 30s. Where was his disadvantage? There is another making a nuisance of himself in another place with a similar history. It wouldn’t matter if there didn’t happen to be kids and many adults that have no individual freedom, no individual rights, no private property rights which has resulted in stunted human potential within a constructed collective, in remote communities missing out on because a heinous and failed experiment operated by a cabal of pseudo-intellectuals, cultural and environmental voyeurs segregated many of these peoples’ freedom by designating economic, ethically and morally deplorable public funded research and policies in labour, and education, health, housing and other things well known now to have resulted in daily lived horrors, in contrast 97.5% of Australians enjoy these fundamental freedoms, choices and needs and most of us take these for granted. The only people who should be able to but can not comment are the many adults who have been particularly shaped and thus silenced by the aforementioned industry specific of culture, environment and academia, all other Australians with the exception of such people as Bess Price and Lake Tyres man who has a blog and are able to comment. The latter two individuals reflect 1 per 100,00 remote people and 2 per 18,594,881 census counted (over 4yrs). Repeal 18c

    Thankyou, I would like to see a public debate as some of us think assistance from the taxpayer ought to be granted on the basis of disadvantage NOT race.

  81. doug z

    incoherent rambler
    #1127974, posted on December 30, 2013 at 1:09 pm

    Mike Carlton, Catherine Deveney, Van Badham

    Definitely of the left. This does not make those of different views “of the right”.

    I would classify Tim as somewhere not too far from the centre.

    We need to stop using the terms “Left” and “Right”, but as long as we are using them, we should be logically consistent. If the extreme left were to be Communism, then it stands to reason that the extreme right would be anarcho-capitalism. Hence, a libertarian (which is kind of what Tim Wilson is) is definitely “of the right”. Wilson’s social views are different to those of most conservatives, which really just shows that they have a funny definition of “freedom”, not that Wilson is left of centre. I hate it how big government conservatives are often labelled as “right wing” when actually they’re a different flavour of statist, and so are definitely left of centre. Protestants and Catholics disagree over a few relatively minor details, which certainly doesn’t put them at opposite ends of the religious spectrum.

  82. We need to stop using the terms “Left” and “Right”

    Indeed, doug z, see “the trichotomy of politics”.

  83. Peter56

    Anybody, like Brandis did, who uses parliamentary privilege, same with Bishop on the same subject (gillard’s criminal dealings with that union), and refuses to say the same outside Coward’s Castle, loses all respect I once had. They are cowards.
    I once wrote to Bishop saying that she should be leader of the Opposition, and PM now, but not any more. Not after her refusal as well to talk outside CC.
    And as a few have written, the softcock and pathetic LNP has not abolished the AHRC. Wilson will achieve very little, except to infuriate the lefty slime, but anybody can do that by talking sense, and is being used as a sop to appease many on the right.
    Why hasn’t softcock Abbott sacked Triggs and Broderick for their comments? That sentence answers itself.

  84. old bloke

    We need to stop using the terms “Left” and “Right”

    Quite so. The extremes of the political spectrum are inhabited by totalitarian statists on one end (think Pol Pot, Hitler, islamism, Stalin, etc.), and by anarchists, lasse-faire capitalism etc. on the opposite end of the spectrum.

    There is nothing “Left” or “Right” here.

  85. old bloke

    The Nolan Chart is instructive

    That is an interesting quiz. I came up borderline centre-LDP, but I don’t think the quiz addresses all possible options WRT social issues. For example, the questions regarding govenment control of abortion did not provide a possible answer nearest to my position which is that the government has no business intervening in the issue, but I should not be forced to contribute towards it through taxation.

    I view abortion as abhorent and an act of murder but realise that it’s going to occur regardless of my personal views. My objection is to the compulsory contribution towards the process through taxation. People should have the right to chose where that portion of their Medicare levy goes, I’m a “Pro-Choice” person in that regard.

  86. Valda

    “human rights” are sacrosanct to the AHRC devotees providing, of course, that their adversaries don’t disagree with them

  87. tomix

    From 8.12am
    We need to stop using the terms “Left” and “Right”, but as long as we are using them, we should be logically consistent. If the extreme left were to be Communism, then it stands to reason that the extreme right would be anarcho-capitalism. Hence, a libertarian (which is kind of what Tim Wilson is) is definitely “of the right”.

    It doesn’t “stand to reason” at all. There’s nothing extreme about libertarianism, Read the header at the top right corner of the page.

  88. .

    This is probably better (but longer and not Australian) you may have issues with the bias of some questions

    http://www.nolanchart.com/survey-php

  89. doug z

    tomix
    #1129379, posted on December 31, 2013 at 4:02 pm

    It doesn’t “stand to reason” at all. There’s nothing extreme about libertarianism, Read the header at the top right corner of the page.

    tomix, I don’t know if you are being deliberately obtuse. I used the word “extreme” to mean “at the far end”, which should have been obvious in context, ie. if at the far left is communism, then its opposite (which would then be the far right) would be anarcho-capitalism. There was no moral judgement attached, and I would consider myself to be a libertarian.

  90. doug z

    #1129245, posted on December 31, 2013 at 1:47 pm

    The Nolan Chart is instructive

    http://www.ldp.org.au/quiz/

    Instructive in what way? I think it merely shows that many people are basically hypocrites, like the “Tea Party libertarians” who believe in freedom to make money and not pay taxes, but not to smoke dope. I believe in self-ownership, the cornerstone of true classical liberalism. This means that I support people’s right to do things that I find abhorrent, as long as they don’t hurt anyone but themselves. My personal beliefs about drugs, abortion, etc, etc, are completely irrelevant unless I lobby the government to regulate these activities, which would make me anything but a libertarian.

  91. tomix

    Doug z at 1053pm.

    It lookss like you are saying Anarcho-Capitalism is “extreme right” and conservatism is left wing.

    Were would you place Italian Fascism?

  92. .

    Well Doug, I’d say that is just one of the ways it is instructive. It also shows you roughly what you believe or maybe if you should join a paticular party or not.

    It also shows how libertarians view others.

    It has at least three points of instruction the left right dichotomy doesn’t.

  93. doug z

    tomix, it makes me sad that I have to explain it to someone who reads and posts on the Catallaxy Files.

    If a system in which there are no private property rights and which does not recognise the individual (communism) is on the left, then one in which the individual and private property are paramount (laissez faire capitalism), is the opposite of that, so I would say it’s on the “extreme right”. You seem to be really hung up on the word “extreme”, but as I explained, I only mean at the far end, or extremity.

    So where would I place Italian Fascism you ask? The answer should be obvious – Mussolini himself said it was in the centre, but I think it is a long way left of centre. Whereas communism doesn’t recognise the individual or his right to the product of his own labor and profit from free exchange with others (the “economic means”), Fascism tolerates private property so long as the state doesn’t have a “greater need” of it, and it tolerates the individual only as long as he serves the state, or his interests coincide with the those of the state. The difference between communism and fascism is pretty insignificant in practice, if you ask me, so I’d put way down the left. It’s a bit like how both Protestantism and Catholicism are versions of Christianity, even though they’ve had some disputes over the finer details.

    As for #1130120, posted on January 1, 2014 at 11:41 am, well, no, I beg to differ. There is only the one I described, and I would not really say that’s the Nolan Chart being instructive. As an anarcho-libertarian, I don’t need the Nolan chart to tell me what political party to join – why would I join any political party? Political parties are, after all, part of what Oppenheimer called the “political means”. And why do you need the Nolan Chart to tell you what libertarians think of others (assuming it even does)? The Nolan Chart might, I suppose, be instructive for people who can hold two or more contradictory opinions simultaneously, which is basically what I said before. The “left-right dichotomy” is actually fine if you define the left as collectivism and the right as individualism, which unfortunately is not how most people think of it, and that is why I suggested we should stop using the terms.

  94. tomix

    Here’s what’s made sense so far. Can’t see a need to change definitions.
    From the Extreme Left to the Extreme Right:

    Communist

    Socialist

    Extreme Liberal

    Liberal

    Center – radical ideas like Libertarianism

    Conservative

    Extreme Conservative

    Reactionary

    Fascist

    Got this from Man in the Trap by Ellsworth Baker p. 156-157[sore neck possible]

  95. .

    I totally agree.

    Libertarians are the centre.

    The left tend to compel, the right tend to prohibit.

    The thing is you can end up being ‘centrist’ and be totally different. This is where I think the nolan chart has value.

  96. doug z

    OK guys, you believe that a system in which property rights are paramount is in the centre, whereas those which treat property rights as non-existent, or conditional to the point of being non-existent, are opposites of each other. I can’t possibly argue with your “logic”.

    And tomix can’t see a need to change definitions. Absolutely incredible. No point wasting more words.

  97. .

    So Doug you don’t think the Nolan Chart has libertarianism centred on at least one axis?

Comments are closed.