Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics

  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 5      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 618
Reply with quote  #16 
can I just say that I actually feel for his wife and children at this time especially.

What a wretched time for them; and in a wider way the country as our leaders in Australia are little more than the Quislings of the purest form for not stamping out this sort of rubbish sooner and they seek to curry favour (invites to post ramadan dinners etc) from those who influence those who have made these threats.

Yours Sincerely Queenslander

Posts: 4,640
Reply with quote  #17 
Finally some on-topic discussion here. The point I'm making is that extremists are only emboldened when they think they're being lent some kind of legitimacy. Our left-liberal elites have effectively declared war on free speech and, as such, anyone brave enough to defy them becomes a potential target.

Posts: 4,640
Reply with quote  #18 
Andrew Bolt talks about the war from within:

Posts: 1,057
Reply with quote  #19 
I thought David would like article:

This part was very interesting:

Whether it is right or wrong, this version of Black Lives Matter is reasonable, peaceful, and worth engaging on the merits of their proposals. But that’s not the only version of Black Lives Matter. Existing side-by-side with the millions of Americans who express the sentiments above is an extraordinarily radical organization, along with a persistent strain of violence that — if present at conservative events such as tea-party rallies or pro-life vigils — would completely discredit the movement. Just consider the last five days:

In Dallas, a black terrorist opens fire on police, killing five in the worst police massacre since 9/11.

In Tennessee, a black man who claimed to be motivated by “police violence against African Americans” opened fire on a highway, killing a woman and injuring three others — including a police officer.

In Missouri, a black motorist ambushed a white police officer after a traffic stop — shooting the officer in the neck and leaving him “fighting for his life.”

Also in Missouri, a young black man threw a planter through the front door of an off-duty police officer’s home and advanced into the house while the officer’s wife, mother-in-law, and young children tried to escape through a back window. The officer opened fire and killed the intruder. He apparently targeted the home after an online argument over Black Lives Matter.

In Minnesota, Black Lives Matter protesters attacked police with “rocks, bottles, and other items,” injuring 21 — including an officer who suffered a broken vertebra “after a concrete block was dropped on his head.”

This is a partial list, not counting lawless protests that blocked interstates, bridges, and other roads across the United States, creating a number of inherently dangerous confrontations between protesters, motorists, and the police. And — again — it’s a partial list from the last week only. Extend the time horizon and the killings increase, the violent protests increase, and the incidents of chants calling for violence multiply.
Leaving aside the question whether BLM as a whole should be tarred with such actions, the hypocrisy of the opinion setting media is obvious. If the Tea Party or any rightwing or conservative movement or cause had been associated with even a fraction of these sorts of incidents, these media outlets would be howling about it.

Posts: 4,640
Reply with quote  #20 
The whole of the BLM movement and SJWs are evil to the core. That is the point. They are enemies of all that we are, there is no doubt about it.

Posts: 4,640
Reply with quote  #21 
Since Sonia Kruger and Pauline Hanson get attacked for daring to speak their mind, Andrew Bolt highlights who the enemies of free speech are:

Notice how in the US, UK and Australia, the Left are using the same tactics and making all the same noises.

Posts: 4,640
Reply with quote  #22

Originally Posted by Rita Panahi
THE climate of censorship in Australia is becoming intolerably oppressive.
Censorious moral guardians stand ready to condemn anyone who dares stray from the accepted Leftist doctrine.
Hideous abuse and threats of violence are used to attack, intimidate and ultimately silence those whose views are deemed unacceptable.
TV host Sonia Kruger will know to keep her mouth shut the next time she has an opinion that deviates from the narrow worldview of the media and political class.
Kruger has been the victim of a vicious “pile on” for daring to voice her opinion about Muslim migration.
She has been called a racist, bigot, Islamophobic and even compared with Hitler.
The Voice host and mother of one was also labelled a (words censored here) repeatedly, and told to kill herself by online cowards who inhabit the Twitter sewer.
Even media personalities were happy to lay the boots in; ABC favourite Adam Richard called Kruger an “intolerant c--t”.
On radio on Tuesday morning, Melburnians were treated to interminably unfunny “comedians” on poorly rating shows condemning Kruger as well as rationalising the despicable abuse she has copped.
It’s interesting to see the same folk who were apoplectic with rage when a fringe-dwelling feminist was called “hysterical” a week ago are now happy to join in the abuse Kruger has endured.
Fairfax even used the word “hysterical” in a headline to describe Kruger and its columnist suggested that she was an uneducated blonde bimbo unworthy of entering political debate.
Likewise, Pauline Hanson continues to be the target of some truly bile-filled vitriol from those who believe an elected senator does not have the right to speak.
What Hanson’s detractors fail to realise is that the more she is mocked and ill-treated, the more support and sympathy she has from the public.
On Monday night Hanson had to again dodge protesters before her appearance on the ABC’s Q&A program where she appeared alongside Labor senator and re-enactment specialist Sam Dastyari.
Curiously, Dastyari intimated during the program that he was a Muslim, despite the fact that he is an atheist. He somehow failed to reveal that he is an atheist even when asked, more than once I might add, whether he was a Muslim.
The victim narrative is a popular one among some in the Muslim community — including jetsetting refugee Aladdin Sisalem. The Palestinian-Kuwaiti, who has used the proceeds of his taxpayer-funded disability pension to take 16 holidays to places such as Russia, Thailand, China and Indonesia, sought to censor this newspaper for publishing a wholly accurate news story last November.
Mr Sisalem used religious vilification laws to lodge an unsuccessful claim with the human rights division of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
All his claims were dismissed by VCAT on Tuesday but tens of thousands of dollars and valuable resources were wasted during the process.
For the record, I don’t agree with Hanson or Kruger’s position that all Muslim migration to Australia should be stopped but I appreciate the fact that they have the courage to say what they think.
Horrific acts of Islamist terror committed around the world have many Australians questioning the value of migration that introduces centuries-old hatreds to our peaceful and secular land.
On Tuesday we woke to news of a teenage Afghan refugee shouting “Allahu akbar” (“God is great”) while attacking commuters with an axe on a German train before being shot dead.
These “lone wolf” attacks are becoming so commonplace that we barely notice them unless they are of the magnitude of the Nice massacre, where 84 people lost their lives.
Meanwhile, the commentariat is becoming increasingly out of touch with the mainstream, opting for PC rhetoric and declining to even acknowledge the threat posed by radical Islam let alone discuss ways of countering it.
Whether you agree with Kruger or not, the manner in which she has been abused for simply sharing an opinion — one that is far more widely held than the media would like to believe — speaks volumes about the way open discourse about Islam is frowned upon in this country.
Any deviation from the weasel words favoured by the political and media elite results in a merciless attack; Australian progressives love displaying how wonderfully tolerant they are by hurling unhinged invective at anyone who dares disagree.
Conservative women are used to this type of demented abuse from those who prefer to attack and smear the individual rather than debate the topic. Meanwhile, feminists stay silent as women are eviscerated online.
The word “racist” is misused and overused so much that it has lost all impact. Once and for all, Islam is a religion, not a race. It’s absurd to try to paint people as diverse as the Sudanese, Persians, Indonesians and Bosnians as a single race.
If you don’t agree with Kruger or Hanson then come at them with some facts, figures and counterpoints, not just crazed abuse.

Posts: 1,057
Reply with quote  #23 
As Panahi notes, Islam is not a race. It makes no sense to call attacks on it racist. I suppose, lurking behind this claim, is that those attacking it because they associate it with no-whites, but this sort of charge would need a lot of support and doesn't seem correct in many cases.

The claim by many politically correct defenders of Islam is that a whole religion of 1.6 billion people cannot be rotten. This seems a strange claim - what about Wahhabism or Qutbism? Surely, it is perfectly possible for the doctrines of a faith to encourage unjust acts. It seems to me many non-Muslim defenders of Islam are as ignorant of it as many of its critics.

Posts: 850
Reply with quote  #24 
I would say that wahhabism is more of a specific branch within a religion. There's nothing technically impossible about a belief held by 1.6 billion people being rotten, but main world religions are so broad that I think it is wrong to classify any of them as 'evil'. There's Islam in all shapes and sizes.

Posts: 1,057
Reply with quote  #25 
I agree about Islam. Having read (or listened to) the Koran, and having a reasonable knowledge of Islam, I don't think it encourages the killing of civilians. The Koran does not preach meekness in the same way the New Testament does. It encourages Muslims to stand up for themselves. There is something of a warlike ethos in early Islam, though this is not the whole picture, but it is also, to a considerable degree, a chivalric ethos. Someone like Emir Abdelkader seems to me to represent the Muslim ideal. There is very little in the Islamic tradition, to my mind, that would provide encouragement for the idea that God wants us to run down civilians in a lorry.

I am not so sure, though, about the reasoning that a faith, or indeed any kind of large movement, can't have doctrines that explicitly encourage aggressive or immoral acts. Is it just the size of Wahhabism or Qutbism that makes the difference?

I agree that Islam comes in many shapes and sizes. One of the most striking things about Wahhabism and modern Islamism is their rejection of the traditional pluralism of Islam (the largely peaceful mix of different schools of jurisprudence, philosophy, theology, and so on). Still, I don't find some of the politically correct commentary on this convincing. Such commentary seems to treat religions as indefinitely malleable, so that even if explicitly unjust acts are at the heart of a religion, it is perfectly possible to just ignore these. To a degree this is true - it is always possible to pick and choose from a faith, as the contemporary Anglican and liberal Protestant churches are a witness to this - but if a doctrine is at the heart of a faith (for example, in its holy books), then it will always have an appeal for those who wish to practice their faith authentically.

Posts: 4,640
Reply with quote  #26 
I am far from ignorant about Islam and have extensively researched it. I am well aware of the established schools of thought - the Ashari and Maturidi schools which include Sufism (mainly the Hanafi, Maliki and Shafi madhabs), the Athari school which is the basis for what is known as Salafism or Wahabism (mainly the Hanbali madhab).

The line between religious radicals and moderates or conservatives is not simply theological, it is also ideological and politica. Islamism, descending from such luminaries as Qutb, Maududi and Khomeini, is first and foremost a political movement rather than a religious one. By contrast, the established schools of Islam are religious movements first and foremost, but may also be involved in politics directly or indirectly. In other words, religious moderates or conservatives are also politically moderate or conservative, supporting and reinforcing the established order and providing a religious bulwark for secular/temporal authorities to work with.

What is however an entirely modern phenomenon is the Islamist fundamentalism that seeks overthrow of the established order and creation of an Islamic utopia. As many including myself have often noted, the roots of this are by no means exclusively Islamic. Islamist movements appear to have taken far more inspiration from fascism and Communism than from established Islamic schools of thought.

Indeed, in Shiite form, this forms the governing ideology of Iran today - the ideas developed by Khomeini from Islamic and non-Islamic sources that created the notion of wilayat al-faqih (Guardianship of the Jurist), which effectively grants absolute authority to the mullahs over affairs of state.

This is in stark contrast to the traditional quietist school of thought (as espoused by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani of Iraq and Ali Al-Amine in Lebanon), where clerics would refrain from direct participation in affairs of state which are left to secular or temporal rulers (even if clerics did/do participate in politics). It is also the position of conservative or traditional ulema whether Sufi (like Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi of Syria, who as you know is an outspoken opponent of Assad and ISIS) or Salafists like Ali Hassan al-Halabi of Jordan.

A word on terrorism. The roots of Islamist terrorism are by no means exclusively Islamic. Far from it, the modern anti-Western narrative is a product of the radical Left who have refined and developed it since World War II with the "anti-colonial" movement, and consequently found currency in the Middle East as well as in post-colonial Asia and Africa. With inspiration from such people as Lenin, Trotsky, Fanon, Castro, Guevara et al, radical movements romanticised "liberation" struggles in terms of "rest against the West".

Western academia effectively gave sanction to anti-Western narratives and consequently to terrorism. This is what gave rise to the modern IRA, ETA, LTTE and Palestinian terror groups. Now Palestinian groups such as the PFLP were not Islamist, but Marxist in inspiration. It is true that Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad have largely displaced the secular Leftist terror groups, but they do share many of the same assumptions. The influence of the Japanese New Left, which pre-dates its Western counterpart by nearly a decade in development, is also noted in the development of terrorism.

Posts: 4,640
Reply with quote  #27 
Listen to this from Andrew Bolt about identity politics and re-tribalisation of society:

Posts: 4,640
Reply with quote  #28 
Originally Posted by Paul Kelly
The rise of identity politics in Australia — with its poisonous assault on rational, honest debate and the quality of public policy — is now tangible in both indigenous and gender issues and was on display this week over the Northern Territory detention crisis.
Identity politics, pursued in the US and on display within university campuses and at the recent Democratic National Convention, is about laws, norms and etiquette to protect and advance identity causes.
A powerful movement with deep cultural roots, it testifies to the revolution within leftist and progressive politics since the failure of Soviet communism and the supplementation of class consciousness with identity based on race, sex, gender and ethnicity. This is fused by historic grievance suffered by such identities and their contemporary demand for redress.
The rise of politics based on the question “who am I?” poses further problems of voter fragmentation for both the Coalition and Labor, though Labor has proved astute in channelling some of this sentiment.
This movement proves the ideological creativity of the Left, the manipulative power of human rights law and the perversion of the idea of justice — seen in this country in section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act where individuals can initiative legal action because they are “offended” by others.
The politics of identity speaks to deep human need. Yet its application veers towards narcissism, censoring of public debate, vicious campaigns of intimidation and a diminished public square. It is extraordinary to see how many institutions and prominent figures buckle before the campaigns of identity politics, too weak to stand on principle.
This sentiment now invades our public culture. It was on display this week following the ABC’s Four Corners program on the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre in the Northern Territory that exposed shocking abuses in the child protection and detention system.
The first manifestation was the extreme reluctance of politicians and media to even mention, let alone canvass, the underlying causes — the breakdown of the indigenous social and family order through a range of issues including family dislocation, neglect, violence, parental abuse and drunkenness.
We witnessed instead a highly constrained and legal discussion around the Turnbull government’s proposed royal commission and the need for an indigenous commissioner. It seemed debate about the underlying causes had to wait until given racial sanction lest it transgress the ethical line of offence, wherever that is exactly.
Once Noel Pearson criticised the politically correct “selective outrage” and told the ABC that “blackfellas” had “to take responsibility for their own children” and Marcia Langton told The Australian this was primarily about children who had been failed by their families rather than race, then an honest debate had been sanctioned.
Australia, once famous for its straight talking, seems a frightened country. Too many people now know that honest talk is risky but, more important, breaking the rules of identity politics risks being branded a racist or sexist. Most people just avoid the risk.
The second manifestation came with Bill Leak’s Thursday morning cartoon in The Australian depicting an irresponsible indigenous father who couldn’t recall the name of his son. Indigenous Affairs Minister Nigel Scullion — ignorant and slow moving over the Territory detention crisis that provoked calls for his resignation — was now a fast-moving champion, declaring he was “appalled” and accusing the paper of “racial stereotypes”. Rarely have a minister’s motives been more guileless or pathetic.
Social media fired up. Race Discrimination Commissioner Tim Soutphommasane invited complaints under the Racial Discrimination Act. This is the way the country now works — the Human Rights Commission encourages action against the offending media to stamp out provocation using the racial offence provision and stirs up potential complainants.
Leak pointed out in Friday’s paper his purpose in the cartoon: if you think things are pretty crook for children in the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre, you should have a look at the homes they came from. It wasn’t hard to get. But the fascinating thing about Leak’s piece was the feedback he got that people couldn’t understand his cartoon.
That’s right, they didn’t get it — surely a victory for a politically correct, dumbed-down education system and the spread of identity politics culture where such images turn the brain into a non-functioning, non-computing defence mechanism.
Is this Australia’s future? It is certainty the future the progressives want. A cartoonist who offends no one is a cartoonist who doesn’t deserve a job. The reason section 18c is important is that it points to the type of Australia the law envisages, that on racial issues the test is subjective — whether an individual is offended. Across time this leads to a political culture of silence and victimhood.
The alternative test is that of community values, surely a superior test and the specific amendment the Attorney-General pro­posed two years ago but that was abandoned in an abject defeat.
The difference is defining.
The essence of identity politics runs as follows: because you haven’t shared my identity you haven’t shared my oppression and you cannot understand my pain and if you cannot understand my pain you have no right to tell my group how to behave. Identity politics, therefore, is hostile to ideas and debate. Indeed, it mobilises the argument of “offence” as a disincentive to debate and to challenge the right of others to engage in vigorous or provocative public discussion.
On display this week has been a deep initial reluctance to confront the causes of the unacceptable situation in Northern Territory youth detention. Yet if the problems cannot be confronted, the solutions cannot emerge.
Consider former champion athlete and indigenous ALP senator for the Northern Territory Nova Peris, who announced in an emotional media conference with Bill Shorten during the election campaign that she would not be recontesting. Peris spoke in a moving way about her family. The purpose here is not to criticise the decision Peris took.
It is, however, to focus on her language and her argument. Rebuking her critics, she said: “Until you are an Aboriginal person, do not criticise me for the decisions I have made.” Shorten, naturally, was sympathetic despite the problem created. “I want to make this clear: no one should judge me,” Peris said. “I am an inherited Aboriginal woman with strengths and resilience that I have had to endure for 45 years.”
The Peris claim was that nobody had a right to judge her unless they were an indigenous person. Only one of her race could judge here; only they could understand. It’s a convenient proposition and the essence of identity politics, now invading our culture. Yet Peris was a member of the national parliament whose resigna­tion became a matter of public interest and, thus, a valid subject for critical judgments by many people who were not Aboriginal.
Consider the fierce opposition to the government’s proposed plebiscite on same-sex marriage. Some people oppose it saying this should be decided by the parliament — that’s John Howard’s position. But the principal argument against the plebiscite is different: that it should be opposed because it will offend the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community.
This constitutes a seismic shift in our politics and testifies to the power of identity politics. An expression of popular will and democratic sentiment cannot be conducted because it will give offence. The nation has never been in such a situation before. The power of the argument is immense — witness Shorten railing in the campaign against the plebiscite, saying it would release hate and homophobia. Forget any benefit from having the people express their views. Forget the legitimacy involved in having the people settle the issue — the plebiscite cannot be tolerated because it causes offence.
The identity push is about etiquette, norms and language, seen recently in this country in the ludicrous claim that the word “guy” is sexist and must be avoided. Many people think this is harmless nonsense. Yet it is driven by a powerful idea whose essence is “respect my identity and don’t offend me”.
In The New Yorker on May 30, Nathan Heller provides a brilliant long report on the rise of identity politics on US university campuses. His focus is on Oberlin, a liberal arts college in Ohio where the student body has been deeply involved in a series of campaigns. The conception of free speech and individual self-expression is now under assault.
Students are being protected from unwelcome or unpleasant ideas. The assumption is that white students cannot know what it means to come from an oppressed ethnic culture. This disqualifies their views and opinions.
James O’Leary, assistant professor of musicology, said: “Students believe that their gender, their ethnicity, their race, whatever, gives them a sort of privileged knowledge — a com­munity-based knowledge — that other groups don’t have.”
Student union board chairman Robert Bonfiglio said: “The fear in class isn’t getting something wrong but having your voice rejected. People are so amazed that other people could have a different opinion from them that they don’t want to hear it.”
The alternative view is too challenging, too offensive. The upshot is the demand for new procedures, rules and laws. But in the process of satisfying the identity agenda the values and norms of the whole — ultimately of the society — have to change. It reveals what is at stake.
This is not Australian public life — not yet. The truth is the debate about the steady rise of identity politics in this country is feeble, drowning in a sea of politically correct approval. We should not be surprised. The idea is to censor Leak in the guise of branding his work racist. And the mechanism to achieve this exists in the current law, as prized and cultivated by the Australian Human Rights Commission.
The parallel mechanism is social media — used to brand institutions and people as racist and sexist as a means of destroying them by mass hysteria. In this climate the spirit of Orwell and Voltaire face a slow but sure death. Let’s hope there is still sufficient left of the old Australian character and courage to turn back the tide.

Posts: 4,640
Reply with quote  #29 
And a letter to prove the point:

For decades we have been subjected to subtle agitation and propaganda. This needs to be set in the context of the anti-colonial liberation movements of Africa and elsewhere so beloved of the Left. A few years ago Germaine Greer described herself as a Marxist and called for an Aboriginal republic. Australia was to become the new South Africa. Unless we understand this, we may one day end up with the kind of government that has wrecked so many African nations.

Posts: 4,640
Reply with quote  #30 
Originally Posted by Jennifer Oriel
Free speech was forged as a right through centuries of bloody wars. Western history brims with the names of martyrs who sacrificed their lives so the children of enlightenment ­­— you and I — would be liberated from the yoke of censors to discern the truth and state it openly. The 21st-century Left is waging new war on free speech by eroding its legal protections and degrading its cultural value. There is no better way to devalue freedom than to publicly disesteem its most potent defenders. But after years of sustained attacks, illustrator Bill Leak and columnist Andrew Bolt are still standing.
Like the censors of old, Australia’s censorial class is brimming with mediocrities who perceive Leak’s unfettered talent as a threat to their illegitimate power.
Despite being fattened on taxpayer funds and surrounded by fawning dullards, the PC censors proscribing our right to reason are demonstrably incapable of beating Leak or Bolt in a battle of wits. So they incite the mob to bully freethinkers out of public life. Race Discrimination Commissioner Tim Soutphommasane has urged people to complain about Leak’s latest thought crime: a politically incorrect cartoon.
Aren’t jihadists waging war on the West? Wasn’t Leak forced to move house after Islamists threatened to kill him? Apparently, what concerned the Australian Human Rights Commission more was the unfolding drama of cartoon capers. After Leak’s cartoon was published, grown men got outraged. Caps lock felt the burn all over Twitter. Then the ABC reported on Twitter. Then Twitter reported on the ABC reporting on Twitter. Then right-on dudes tapped out super aggro letters about Leak’n’stuff to 4realz social justice warriors @postcode #2000. OMG. Trigger warning!
Meanwhile, children are being beaten, abused and neglected every day in Australia. And some of them are Aboriginal children neglected by drunken Aboriginal men — the subject of Leak’s cartoon. People who neglect and abuse children should be held up for public scrutiny whatever their skin colour, culture or sex. And artists who reveal that abuse should not be censored for offending those offended by truth.
There should be no get-off-scot-free card because you are born female, or black, or haven’t migrated from the land of your forebears. None of those facts makes you a better human being than your fellow citizen, or deserving of superior protections and privileges under law.
The idea that made the free world free and the world’s most humanising principle is that we are each born free and equal, endowed with reason. Under the regime of minority privileges enshrined in the Racial Discrimination Act, however, we are once again unequal and endowed with emotion. I feel therefore I am has replaced reason in the minority Left rule book. I’m offended therefore you’re wrong is the revelation bequeathed by the PC Left.
In a speech last Friday, Tony Abbott conceded that as prime minister, he failed Australia on free speech because his government did not repeal section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act. The notorious section prohibits speech deemed offensive or insulting by state-designated racial minorities. It was introduced by the Labor Party under Paul Keating. The most infamous 18c case was brought against Bolt. Justice Bromberg’s ruling on the Bolt case makes for fascinating reading. In particular, the broadening of the legal definition of race to include religious groups deserves more critical review.
Soutphommasane recently produced his own interpretation of race and religion in an article on racism: “Some believe something is only truly racist if it involves a belief in racial superiority … Anti-Muslim hostility, meanwhile, is frequently excused on the grounds that ‘Islam is not a race’ ... As for Islam not being a race? That’s a clever trick — one that ignores how anti-Muslim feeling can involve a mingling of ideas about race, culture and religion.”
I have never read a more confused analysis of racism. But there is a much clearer pattern of persecution emerging in Australia. And it seems not to trouble human rights commissioners, the Press Council, or other taxpayer-funded organisations such as the ABC. It is the persecution of Australian artists and writers by Islamists.
In 2015, Leak was forced to move house after Islamists threatened to kill him because he drew a cartoon featuring Mohammed in response to the jihadist slaughter of Charlie Hebdo artists. A year and a half later in a safer house, there are five emergency alert cards affixed permanently to his computer in case jihadists find their way to him. How many of the outraged Twits and commissioners attacking Leak put their lives on the line each day in defence of free expression?
In 2015, a Muslim also threatened the life of Bolt. In 2016, there has been another jihadist threat on his life and this time, he had to move his family from their home while police investigated.
Where is the outrage from the ABC, Human Rights Commission and Press Council and about Islamists threatening to kill our artists and writers? Or is free speech only protected in Australia if it’s left wing?
Liberal senators who champion free speech have joined with Derryn Hinch and Pauline Hanson in a renewed push to amend or repeal s18c. In response, the minority Left and Labor Party have reverted to the strategy that thwarted the Abbott government’s attempt to restore free speech. Opposition legal affairs spokesman Mark Dreyfus has suggested that critics of 18c support “race hate speech”. Dreyfus appointed Soutphommasane to the Human Rights Commission in 2013.
The coming battle over free speech and the Racial Discrimination Act will test the Liberal coalition’s commitment to freedom. This time, however, the tactic of using race as a political tool to browbeat dissenters into submission is well known.
We need a more muscular liberalism to defeat PC censors, their culture of codified bigotry and their determination to destroy the hard-won freedoms that distinguish the West from the rest. We will not let another freethinker fall while 18c stands.
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.