Richard Glover, wants people tattooed and staked out at sea to die in the rising tide (or rising hysteria) is good. This is evidently not encouraging vitriol or calling other Australians enemies who must be identified and dealt with. Jill Singer wants "deniers" locked in a sealed room with only CO2 to breath, is good.

These are both examples of hate speech, in my opinion.

Alan Jones, bad, doesn't matter what he says, he gets popular support, which is just not allowed, hate speech or not.

In summary, free speech should only be for people who agree with the author, and those who disagree must be demonized.

If some nutter mentions Richard Glover, or the author, should they be silenced? Information, like bias, exists everywhere, do we have to regulate it because of some nutters?

We're more mature than that and can deal with it, without regulation or laws. Who decides what will be printed? Or what someone says?

Do we want a country where freedom of speech is reduced by the little noisy self obsessed over entitled minority who want to call "I am offended, therefore you must be silenced" on everything?

That's why there is a conservative backlash, but even then, you have to call conservatives, "right wingers" to get emotional buy in.

I read a comment on the ABC yesterday, a person was berating anyone who voted conservative, as "red necks".

Vilifying those who disagree, goes both ways, at least conservatives recognize that and do not call for the silencing of anyone who disagrees. (the ABC would have to shut down if that was the case)

I don't listen to Alan Jones, or Richard Glover, but do not require either of them to be silenced .. rational people know the media are attention seekers and derive their income, pay rises and promotions from exaggeration and hyperbole. The truth or skewing of facts is just life, like this article, which is a rant against Alan Jones trying to dress up as being reasonable.

We don't need hand wringing finger pointers demanding regulation.

I was to some extent going well with the article until it became obvious how heavily biased against "right wing" views it was. No examples of the trail that leads from the expression of left wing views to hatred and harm to those who are the targets of those views when taken to an extreme.

Almost everything is on a continuum, it's easy to join the dot's if you don't like what the other is saying, not so easy if you have a fair bit of agreement with the moderate position but reject the extreme version.

Breivik may have had admiration for conservative figures in Australia but that does not mean that his actions are a rational extension of their views.

Both extremes (and some in the middle) are capable of using whatever tactics they can find to try and intimate opponents into silence or spinning convenient "facts" to misrepresent a situation or an opponents views.

R0bert

How pleasant to read a piece by Ken McNab again. And I agree with the general thrust of it. But I have three points to make, The first is that the greatest part of the hate and vilification I encounter on the media is in the blogosphere, partly because it is almost uncensorable, and the people using it are mostly anonymous. It is much harder for denouncers to use death threats in the open. As newspaper columnist for much of my life I have had my share of it, always anonymous, and nasty (in the most dramatic case, about my views on abortion, and more recently about climate change).

The second is that public vilification by and of politicians is not new, and I'm not sure it is any more common than it once was, though I have no data. Perhaps it is amplified by the blogosphere, and that makes the difference — if there is one.

And to say something already said above, we have a culture of vilification. It is not something shown only by those of a conservative persuasion. It is plain to me that selective reporting, failure to present alternative views or data, and contemptuous dismissals of opposing views, are common across the board, and in all mainstream media, including the ABC. I think that this is a change for Australia, where there was once a more marked separation between what was thought to be 'news' and what was agreed to be 'editorial opinion'.

But I completely agree with Ken that all of us who are engaged in public debate should act in a respectful and restrained manner when we are dealing with those of opposing views. Who knows, we ourselves may very occasionally be wrong...

In the same "tattoo article" Richard Glover also wrote:

"There's a type of green zealot who appears to relish climate change. Every rise in sea levels is noted excitedly. Every cyclone is applauded and claimed as a noisy, deadly witness for their side.

Suddenly, it's as if they have the planet's assistance in their lifelong campaign to bully everyone else into accepting their view of the perfect world. One without any human beings. Except for them. Living in a cave. Wearing an unwashed T-shirt that not only says ''Support wildlife'' but actually does."

So he was obviously winding up the zealots from both sides. Unfortunately those who rabidly took the bait got sucked in.

While I have some sympathy for Macnabb's stance, the sort of online villification he is talking about is now a fact of life. People who would be restrained in offering criticism face to face, say the most awful things in emails. Nor is there anything to be "done" about it.

The most important thing is for the recipient not to return the abuse. One approach may be return a polite note thanking them for showing an interest in the subject and attaching some material that they might find of use. This would have to be semi-automated so you can keep on doing it until the abuser gives up. Not sure if it would work, but its the sort of solution our conflict studies guy should be proposing, rather than abusing people for being people.

Thank you for your article Ken.

I don't agree with you because only undertake the vilification of people who hold and express only conservative views.
I would have lent some weight to your article had you included some reference to the ABC and many of the left wing media.
Your article would have been more comprehensive and held some validity, for me, if you had included some analysis of the one issue that has lead to much of the harshness in public debate. ie the frustration at Labor continually using the tactics of the Hawker-Britton school.

Those tactics of attacking, on various levels, those holding different opinions to the government. Of calling them all sorts of names, subjecting them to ridicule, subjecting them to outright contempt and deliberate campaigns of denigration.

But the worst tactic of all, that of spinning to justify outright lies and the deliberate propagandising of that by media in favour of labor governments.

These tactics lead to great frustration and lead to the incitement of many angry and irrational responses.

Essentially truth in the media is the underlying issue not the name calling and hate. How can anyone be expected to remain completely civil in the face of such uncivil tactics. One cannot debate against these tactic and the attendant media propaganda.

I think your one way so called 'right-wing' abuse and incivility, that you highlight, is essentially a case of 'getting back what you give out'.

Curb that initial abuse and incivility and return to the emphasis on truth and decency in the media, of the Howard years and earlier generations, and much of the current vilification indulged in, in the media, will disappear.

'A fair suck of the sauce bottle' given to all in the media is more an answer to the current chaos, than relying on a stupid and narrow intrepretation and application of the hate legislation.

Regards

I think you only have to look at Q and A or Insight and you see the same sort of crap. Sure it's more subtle, and in the language of inner city intectuals, but the bogan-hatred rings loud and clear, and the political bias is perhaps even more profound.

Example:> Insight the other night interviewing boat people, encouraging emotive 'humanising' stories, and then crossing to a token 'bogan' to inelegantly put a stereotypicall bogan view across, for all in the audience to tut tut and look down on, and attempt to re-educate the poor bogan and appeal for him to empathise and shame him if he refuses to relent to peer pressure emotional blackmail and public humiliation.

It's all very manipulative and it's to reinforce the prejudice of the latte set just as Jones reinforces the prejudice of the 'bogan masses'. Pure propaganda hoisting up the left thinking as morally and intellectually superior, and patronising the right as think as a plank or just plain evil. All over a polite little conversation with lashings of ginger beer.

It's a different love-language, but the love is just the same; Playin' to the crowd, and reinforcing prejudice.

Houlley no wonder you lean to the melancholy. Is there no hope for the human race? Are we all just manipulated organisms with no 'free' thought, and if so when does the rot set in which will determine the path most travelled.

We could discuss the the validity of 'free' thought but the argument is lost before it begins.

As for debasement of public debate, clearly there are no saints ideologically speaking.

The quality of Question Time has plummeted over the years although it has always been 'robust'. I was watching Warren Truss today strutting his strawman arguments about the Convoy of 'no consequence' comment made by Albanese to mean that the government does not care about regional Australia. Really, is that what it meant, I am glad we have these people here to tell us what to think.

The ALP are just as guilty.

The climate change 'denier', 'sceptic' is only matched by the climate change 'believers' or my favourite 'earth worshippers' - none if it contributing to the debate.

It is politicised name-calling that is all.

The battle is not the Left vs the Right;
It is the honestly balanced vs the partisans and profiteers.

The honestly balanced may be Left/Right biassed, but seek the best balance given their knowledge. They at least agree on facts where possible.
The partisans and profiteers are either one-eyed political beasts (Abbott, Jones), guns for hire (Bolt, Jones), or idealists (most "radical" greens). Either way they encourage ignorance and use rhetoric and bullying instead of rational argument.
The anti-science movement (a large part of many extremist groups on both Left and Right) wants a return to the dark ages and "might is right"...why research things when you can decide what they are and then "convince" people of one's rightness? Science allows the humble to gain some truth using transparent (although complex) methods...hence it's status as highly objectionable to authoritarian types!

Ozlandy,

here you have given a prime example of the tactic's of the Hawker School.

We see you open up with the claim about honesty vs dishonesty or as you assert 'the partisans and profiteers'.

Then you name call.
You by inference equate the 'the partisans and profiteers' with conservatives and your name calling is limited to those who don't share so caled l'progressive' views.

Then you dishonestly ascribe positions, that are not held, to those you've name called ... in other unrelated issues.

Then you re-inforce your beliefs and bleat on that because you ascribe to, what you see as, the authority of science and by inference the scientific method, and everybody who doesn't agree is an authoritarian loving arrogrant.

How can anybody rationally and calmly debate the issue of honesty with such emotive uncivil attitiudes.

Any attempt at rational debate of the initial proposition will either be ignored or an attempt will be made to drag the discussion into drowning in the detail of your uncivil and bad-mannered aspersions.

Sadly Ken won't show he agrees with my points nor will he comment on the Hawker type of tactic... which you've adopted.

Ozlandy,

here you have given a prime example of the tactic's of the Hawker School.

We see you open up with the claim about honesty vs dishonesty or as you assert 'the partisans and profiteers'.

Then you name call.
You by inference equate the 'the partisans and profiteers' with conservatives and your name calling is limited to those who don't share so called 'progressive' views.

Then you dishonestly ascribe positions, that are not held, to those you've name called ... in other unrelated issues.

Then you re-inforce your beliefs and bleat on that you ascribe to, what you see as, the authority of science and by inference the scientific method, and everybody who doesn't agree is an arrogrant authoritarian loving ... whatever.

How can anybody rationally and calmly debate the issue of honesty with such emotive and uncivil attitiudes.

Any attempt at rational debate of the initial proposition will either be ignored or an attempt will be made to drag the discussion into drowning in the detail of your uncivil and bad-mannered aspersions.

Sadly Ken won't show he agrees with my points nor will he comment on the Hawker type of tactic... which you've adopted... and which is inflamatory.

During the miners’ strike in Britain in the 1980s, a polemic verse entitled “ode to a scab” circulated among the strikers. One national newspaper picked up on it as an example of the strikers’ malice, but it fact it had been penned decades before by Jack London.

Polemic, vitriol, misrepresentation and discourtesy are not new in public debate or the media – they have been part of public debate for centuries. And, as many posters have pointed out, they are found across the political spectrum, not just the right. Most of us are grown up enough to recognise the fact and tolerate it as a necessary price of free speech and free press. The day you need a licence to public an opinion, we’ll be in deep trouble.

For those who enjoy such things:

Ode To A Scab, by Jack London (1915 ish)

After God had finished the rattlesnake, the toad, and the vampire, He had some awful substance left with which He made a scab. A scab is a two-legged animal with a corkscrew soul, a waterlogged brain, and a combination backbone made of jelly and glue. Where others have hearts, he carries a tumour of rotten principles.

When a scab comes down the street, men turn their backs and angels weep in heaven, and the devil shuts the gates of hell to keep him out. No man has a right to scab as long as there is a pool of water deep enough to drown his body in, or a rope long enough to hang his carcass with. Judas Iscariot was a gentleman compared with a scab. For betraying his Master, he had character enough to hang himself. A scab hasn't.

Esau sold his birthright for a mess of pottage. Judas Iscariot sold his savior for thirty pieces of silver. Benedict Arnold sold his country for a promise of a commission in the British Army. The modern strikebreaker sells his birthright, his country, his wife, his children, and his fellow men for an unfulfilled promise from his employer, trust, or corporation.

Thanks, Ken. Truly delicious irony here. Anders Breivik mentions Keith Windschuttle, and that establishes ‘Right Wing Extremism’. David Hicks (‘Jews want to rule the world’) gets his self-serving memoirs shortlisted for the Queensland Premier’s Awards, and that proves ... well, nothing, of course.

I’d dearly love to see a serious, courteous, formal debate between Tim Flannery and Anthony Watts on climate change, say at the Melbourne Writers’ Festival. No? What about an appropriately moderated dialogue on the ABC between Noel Pearson and Larissa Behrendt on the NT Intervention, then? Okay, suppose we ask Greg Sheridan and Christine Milne to present their perspectives on prospects for peace between Israel and Palestine at the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies?

It won’t happen, but not because nasty right-wing denialists in the audience would shout insults Saint Tim. Or because racists would unfurl a huge banner demeaning Larissa’s ancestry as soon as she started to speak. Or because Greg would denounce the Palestinian Authority as a terrorist organisation, while Christine calmly defended Jews from rabid anti-Semites in the back row of the auditorium.

It won’t happen because too many on the sanctimonious Left consider it a gaia-given right to silence debate about what they’re already sure of. Conservatives don’t form packs to shout down environmentalists protesting coal exports. Traditionalists don’t rewrite history to the point where fewer than 3% of high school students have any idea what Pol Pot is famous for. Right-wingers don’t organise boycotts of Australian businesses owned by Jews.

For all that, I largely agree with you. We should value free speech, insisting on civility and respect from those who speak to the important issues of our times (and also from those gathered to hear them). It’s just a great pity, and hugely ironic, that you argue for graciousness and respect from the Right, but can neither acknowledge even one of many Conservatives who already practice what you preach, nor mention a single Lefty who’s failed to meet your standards.

nutter: I also "name called" the Looney Left (radical greens)...sorry I didn't pick more names from the left but I believe you missed my point entirely...which is also an excellent rhetorical tactic!
Dunno about this "Hawker school"...I just call it as I see it.

Missing the point entirely works well for lots of the 'nutters'; self-confessed or not. They love to have an opinion and voice it loudly and repetitively and it is their right to do this! Never forget that.

I blame the left wing teachers who led them to believe that 'we are all equal'. But eventally they realised that this wasn't true, that some people really could do more complex and difficult stuff with their brains than they could.

Then they heard about post-modernism - again it's the left who are responsible for this travesty of a theory - and although quite stupid, they were canny enough to see that this gave them the right to not only have an opinion, but to be unashamed that their opinion lacks any factual or intellectual support.

Furthermore, post-modernism allows them to deny that people with high intelligence and the discipline to apply themselves and actually understand the issues, have any credibility. They believe that their 'real world' knowledge, and their undoubted ability to be unbiased, trumps years of learning and research

Thanks Ken for an article which was both heartening and disturbing. I'm reminded of Max Frisch's 1953 work "Biedermann und die Brandstifter", wherein he writes of arsonists who visit a village and yet openly boast of their intentions. Frisch was writing by way of allegory of the demise of the Weimar Republic, and this seems disturbingly true of liberal democracies. It seems unfashionable in this world of postmodern rhetoric, but, yes, you are correct, we do have a responsibility to speak the truth. Readers may also be interested in my own article in Online Opinion, which was in a similar vein: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10766

Not quite true Ozelandy

'or idealists (most "radical" greens).

Cannot see 'the Looney Left' mentioned anywhere in your post.

That's not as you see it though, is it?

And as is typical of the Hawker School, you haven't dwelt on the issue you raised, that of honesty vs dishonesty, nor did you attempt to argue against my case.

You have, as I suggest the Hawker School behave, attacked me personally by by saying I intentionally 'missed your point'

I didn't ... if you hadn't had the intention of slanting your criticism and it's just happened that way ... well that says a lot more than you've written.

Ahhh Mollydukes

I see you've attended the same education facility as Ozlandy.
And you haven't failed

The article was going along okay until it become an attack on the right and conservatives. While it is obvious right-wingers often speak aggressively, it's no different on the left. The left get away with it because they disguise their tirades under banners like "equality," "social justice," "humanitarianism" and the like. Beneath this veneer is a rage equal to anything the right possesses.

"there must be nothing likely to incite hatred against, or serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, any person or group of persons because of age, ethnicity, nationality, race, gender, sexual preferences, religion, transgender status or disability."

If the above was applied stringently, most universities, particualarly in Humanities departments, would have about 98% of their doctors and professors jailed or fined. Whole courses are based upon the degradation, ridicule, and contempt for Western Civilization; whites and males quite often the target of such attacks. Of course, the tricky and deceptive left get anyway with such hate by disguising it as "critique," or "knowledge," or "social justice."

You can't fool me, Ken. This is one of the things I mostly dislike about leftists, their deception. They never appear to be who they say they are.

The educated left aren't deliberately trying to fool people. Why would you think that? Intellectuals don't realise that many people simply don't understand their reasoning.

Surely you can accept that you don't have the capacity to understand theoretical physics so why would you think you can understand the complex reasoning and research that goes into the ideas that the left come up with. One really needs a certain level of cognitive capacity to understand the nuances of such wanky theories.

The ideas you seem to object to so vehemently and emotionally are abstract ideas and perhaps you are a concrete thinker? http://www.projectlearnet.org/tutorials/concrete_vs_abstract_thinking.html

I blame the conservatives for the idea that having a high IQ means one is better than those with a lower IQ. They used this argument to show that black people are inferior to white people.

Jnutter My PhD was in psychology - is this a left faculty? But I failed a Vis Arts degree I undertook later. I failed because I opted out of any class taught by postmodern 70's feminists - of any age - and stuck to the practical classes.

Mollydukes
"The educated left aren't deliberately trying to fool people. Why would you think that? Intellectuals don't realise that many people simply don't understand their reasoning."

Many people don't understand it, that's why they're fooled into believing them. For example, slogans like "equality" might sound nice and present itself as a helper of the less fortunate, but very often the primary motivation is a resentment against the strong, the successful, the wealthy, and the talented. Resentment drives ideas like equality, not compassion as the left want you to believe.

Mollydukes
"Surely you can accept that you don't have the capacity to understand theoretical physics so why would you think you can understand the complex reasoning and research that goes into the ideas that the left come up with. One really needs a certain level of cognitive capacity to understand the nuances of such wanky theories."

I am fully cognizant of the theories of the left. I was a leftist, I was educated largely by leftists, and I once was a tutor in a course that required me teaching various leftist ideas. I lived it, breathed it, and ate it. Which is why I consider myself an authority on what leftists stand for.

Mollydukes
"The ideas you seem to object to so vehemently and emotionally are abstract ideas and perhaps you are a concrete thinker? http://www.projectlearnet.org/tutorials/concrete_vs_abstract_thinking.html."

Both the left and right have a socio-political project that has "abstract ideas" and "concrete thinking." Whatever the socio-political project, ideas come first, then their enforcement in concrete. The left likes to parade itself as possessing supposed superior intellects, yet for all their convoluted, "complex," and textual meandering, their morality is quite simple: support the underdog and attack those in power. So for all the supposed intellectual superiority of Derrida and Foucault, they both are essentially doing little more than rallying against power structures. Essentially, this no different from a cranky, rebellious teenager.

Aristocat

As I said, very few people are capable of understanding fully the so-called left ideas. I don't understand why you consider them to be 'left' ideas and I don't understand why you are so personally angered by the ideas. Perhaps you confuse the ideas with the necessarily flawed individuals - hypocrites and charlatans - who espouse them?

I came across a number of people at Uni who taught 'post-modernism' without understanding it so your claim to have taught it does not meed the standard of proof required. Perhaps, there aren't enough high IQ people around to fill these posts.

I blame the capitalist system for the faults of the Universities. It is the need for everything to make a profit, and be 'efficient' that has destroyed the quality of our Universities and allowed cheap and nasty postmodernists to have so much air space and degrade the ideas.

I used the term concrete and abstract thinking in psychological terms - nothing to do with right or left. You see a dicotomy between these ideologies that doesn't really exist. People's views are far more diverse than can be adequately described or encompassed by left and right.

And surely, it is the case that some of us don't have a high IQ and most of us don't have an IQ that would allow us to understand Foucoult or what he intended to do - assuming of course that he did want to do anything except put his thoughts down in a book.

Is it polically incorrect to point out that some people, like Alan Jones are just not intelligent and do not understand what they are railing against? Is it politically incorrect to suggest that he has a personality disorder and therefore should not have access to vulnerable, easily impressed, low IQ people who are negatively influenced by his disordered thinking.

Hi Molly,

Yes you learning is apparent and impressive.
I agree with what you say about Jones but would add it applies equally with many of the persons in the media. Especially the identies of the ABC and many in the Canberra Press Gallery. In fact it could probably be applied to any commentator who addresses any issue, at any or all the time, from a distinctly idealogical viewpoint.

There are some, very few, in the media these days who, while having past political ascossiations are indeed unbiased and can present logical and for the most part uncoloured material.

I also agree the left/right label is not reflective of the attitudes today and in many cases cannot be applied to many individuals however it is no mere coincidence many left and right commentators simply line up with the current Liberal or Labor position. Which by the way these days I think also the parties blurr the distinction between left and right on many issues. eg Free Trade and Protectionism.

I don't follow your reasoning on the demise of our Universities. Surely there has to be an element of personal responsibility somewhere in the academic mess that has arisen.

Regards

Jnutter,

My high IQ is not something I can be proud of. I have 'Asperger Syndrome' and this type of brain is good at academic thinking. The obverse is poor social skills; I don't know how to behave in social situations.

In my early life, I couldn't keep a job or a relationship. It was a leftie, hairy legged - female social worker in the Department of Social Security who pointed out to me that in return for my sole parent benefit I had an obligation to return something to society.

She encouraged me, when I was in my late 30's to go to Uni and 'participate'; to give something back to society. I thrived there in a wonderful psycology department of a regional Institute of Advanced Education.

Then along came Dawkins and the idea that all higher institutes of learning were to be Universities. That was when the rot started, I reckon. The 'left' in those days had taken up the idea that 'effeciency' was 'the' answer.

But I haven't really thought fully about the issue and I admit that I am trying to be disengenously 'clever' in 'blaming' things. It really isn't helpful to apportion blame.

But one thing I saw was that the need to keep fee-paying overseas students played hell with the idea of objective marking. Impossible to both maintain the high standards of scholarship we in the dept knew and loved while keeping admin happy about the numbers of foreign studens we failed.

Off thread and too much personal infomation? Blame the Aspergers?

Mollydukes you are an interesting person and I concur with your last two posts about the commercialisation of tertiary education.

My layman's interpretation is the debasement of public debate comes partially from a growing disatisfaction with politics and politicians and media concentration on the game of politics and very little on the policies. How many people would know the achievements of this government in many areas which are drowned out with the 'nonsense' end of politics and a good story with mystery and intrigue such as the Craig Thompson affair, the convoy rally, what Abbott said about this or that,the anti-gay hate rally at Parliament house etc.

Media thrives on blood and gore not on straight pieces and the public could put a stop to it. Who buys these papers or listens to the shock jocks?

Is it that you feed bananas you get monkeys or that monkeys want bananas so you feed them. I don't possess the powers to work it out but I reckon the media helps shape societies as much as many protest-too-muchers claim they are only reacting to demand.

Wow is this the little mensus club. Who has the biggest....

'the left likes to parade itself as possessing supposed superior intellects, yet for all their convoluted, "complex," and textual meandering, their morality is quite simple: support the underdog and attack those in power.'

Classic! Bravo Aristocrat.

You seem like a fellow reformed leftie. Now that doesn't make me a righty, just a bit like someone that escaped from a cult and saw the world in more balanced terms.

pelican,

politics is a soap opera for men. Leave it alone, you chicks have Home and Away and Rafters.

'Who buys these papers or listens to the shock jocks?'
Now how come that argument doesn't stand when it comes to sechualising and body image of women? Huh!

Monkeys want bananas man, and if you feed them you reap the spoils. It just is! Why do you look for patterns when the world just happens. I love humans. It's as beautiful as those fish that live in another fish's mouth. Co-dependency is where it's at. Prejudice is the currency, and people love to read things that reinforce their world view. Don't make us think!

The media is a conduit, bringing natural allies together.

BTW are we talking about Alan Jones here or Tony Jones? Same diff I suppose, just one is more sneaky.

Mensus club? Who has the biggest?

Ewww.

It's my pet name for Mensa.

Why bother? Didn't they let you in?

No mensus? No mensa!

Pelican

I totally agree with you that the media shapes society as much, at least as much as demand shapes the media. It isn't good enough to say that we get the media we deserve.

It isn't easy to sort out the strands that have come together to create this situation but I do think that it is the emphasis on making a profit at the expense of decent behaviour, that has resulted in the degradation of all of our public institutions, including the media.

There is nothing wrong with making a profit, the way the word 'profit' was understood by the original proponets of capitalism. I am sure that these men did not understand how quickly other men and women would find it convenient to disregard the ethical and moral considerations that they would have thought fundamental to all good men.