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