Patriotism to justify oppression. And yet the Libs are resorting to the free speech argument to provide latitude for bigotry. Whatever illusions the CPA of that time had in the USSR, they were amongst the first to support the rights of indigenous peoples; of women; of the poor and the unemployed. They were Australian citizens and they had their rights. And 'freedom of association' means just that...

Max, I think you are confusing the conscience of the Classical Liberal mind with the conscience of men and women who happen to be parliamentary members of the Liberal Party of Australia in the 21st century.
Those same men and women are in Parliament today because of the policies the Liberals presented to the public at the last election, together with the small effect local MPs would have had meeting and greeting their local constituents. The policies of the ruling government party today is NOT the sum of the parts of the Parliamentary Liberal Party, but rather what party members and constituents and backers have told the party what it wants.

When the Liberals select candidates, the criteria is varied: clean skin, telegenic, respectable, personable, suitably representative of community re gender, age, religion and ethnic origin, street-smart, etc. Even though being a communist or some other fanatic will automatically bar you, actual political philosophy generally comes way down on the list. This is not an opinion. Liberals such as Alexander Downer and John Howard have actually admitted that the party is non-ideological but pragmatic. Not to put too fine a point on it but candidates are not chosen for their philosophical acumen.

If the government truly wanted to be ‘liberal’ about gay marriage by trying to get as broad an opinion as possible, then it should just trust their polling, or better still, arrange a plebiscite to get an exact indication of what Australians thought about the issue, rather than polling eighty odd men and women, chosen because they were without criminal record, telegenic, personable, representative, etc

Max does not have to stress so much about debate on same sex 'marriage ' being shut down. The national broadcasters promote perverted lifestyles daily. It is unusual for them to have a programme that reflects the bulk of the population. Soon they will need to have a token straight on their panels.

'Communism' in the true Marxist sense - that is, not in the Stalinist sense, is no more 'extreme' than Randian and Austrian School economics. to clarify Rand, Hayek and Mises are about as extreme as economic libertarianism goes... Though interesting both Marx and Hayek had the goal of minimising the state as a 'final goal'. Though Marx thought this could be taken 'all the way', and Hayek supported a 'nightwatchmen's' state - enforcing property and contract laws.

All ideas of 'extremes' are relative mind you. The Greens today are lambasted as being extreme for supporting views - many of which would have found a place in the Liberal Party's left-wing until the 'purges' of the 1980s; and Don Chipp's split from the Liberal Party.

what every one has missed in this debate is the background to the legislation, the UN convention was to outlaw a politicial philosophy of racial superiority, no iffs or butts, the rationale behind this was the acceptance of a basic human right that every person regarded of their race should be treated equally, a political philosophy promoting racial superiority of one race over another ipso facto undermines a basic human right. the further rationale is that political philosophies promoting the ideology of racial superiority in history have been directly responsible for genocide and brutal suppression and individual liberty, and the root cause of territorial wars between sovereign nations. The current legislation that we have, 18c is very weak legislation, it does not criminalise the activity, 18c only allows actions by way of civil proceedings not criminal proceedings, most states' summary offences legislation place greater restrictions on freedom of speech, so where is the groundswell to repeal every state's summary offences legislation?

Dear Tristan,

I am a Green and support many of their policies.

However, Communism in the true Marxist sense was defined in the Communist Manifesto.

Stalin generally followed the ten points Marx specified in that manifesto.

e. g. 6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

There goes free expression, a free press and even owning a bicycle.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12693&page=0 will direct you to my article on the subject which comments on the points. The corpses produced by Stalin and Lenin were no accident. They were a logical consequence of Marxism.