One thing that free speech protects is the ability to emotionally manipulate your listeners or readers by exaggeration, dramatisation, generalisation, trying to induce guilt when none is appropriate, and resorting to referencing situations long past as examples to support a present situation. If the author has valid arguments to support his case he should present them in a valid way. There is no need to try and emotionally manipulate unless you are very insecure about your position and this author sounds very insecure.

If citizens of this country are swayed by the opinions of Pauline Hanson, shock jocks, or writers from the 1880s then we have much bigger problems than the abuse of free speech. These people obviously cannot think for themselves and if they cannot think for themselves about issues of race then how many other things are they unable to see reasonably?

The tired old argument about Hitler and the Jews is rather simplistic. German people did not abuse the Jews because they had some inherit dislike for them they abused them and discriminated against them because they were afraid not to. Look what happened to any German caught supporting them. Hatred of the Jews was Hitler’s personal psychosis and he had the power to force everyone to help him carry out his desire to eliminate them. How many of us would not be up for a little vilification with a gun pointed at our heads?

I do not think that Australians are particularly stupid when it comes to problems of race but they are susceptible to emotional manipulation. People who rant and rave, exaggerate or dramatise have a power which they should not have. Celebrities have a power which they should not because many people do not have the emotional intelligence to see when they are being manipulated. Politicians who shout down reasoned arguments have a power over other politicians who do not resort to emotional manipulation.

Authors such as this one seek to change society not by presenting reasoned arguments but by trying to manipulate their readers.

'If citizens of this country are swayed by the opinions of Pauline Hanson, shock jocks, or writers from the 1880s then we have much bigger problems than the abuse of free speech '

Personally I would be more concerned with the ABC/Progressive/Obama narrative where every event in history has to fit their narrative (ie all white males are racist). The swallowers of this dogma seem to hide behind some pseudo intellectualism which is sickening and dishonest. No more evident of this is the recent taping of some old man's comments by a gold digger only to become part of one of Obama's favourite narratives. He ignores the simple fact that in a country with a minority of African Americans that he was elected President.

What the 'progressives' want silenced is a challenge to their small minded narrative (all whites are racist) which ignores true immorality (such as baby murder) and an old man dumping his wife to commit adultery with an African/American gold digger.

Oh how lovely to feel secure in your narrative. It make you feel so self righteous.

<One thing that free speech protects is the ability to emotionally manipulate your listeners or readers by exaggeration, dramatisation, generalisation, trying to induce guilt when none is appropriate, and resorting to referencing situations long past as examples to support a present situation.>

You're right, Phanto, the Greens suck.

This emotional ranting and historical distortion are evidence of how multiculturalism has failed. As a white Australian I am offended by your racist abuse, but I will not take action under 18C as I believe that ,however objectionable , you have the right to express your opinions.

Dear Chek LING...

I'm very sorry indeed to hear that you find Australia to be a country that harbours deep seated racism amongst it's population ? And for that, may I apologise to you most profoundly for any hurt or injury that may've been occasioned upon you personally, by these awful words ?

Actually the vast majority of Australians are a very broadminded group of individuals by and large, and any suggestion of racism, might I suggest is meant more in jest, than with any intent to inflict a moral hurt upon you or your sensibilities ?

In conclusion, I again sincerely hope you'll accept this apology as a simple token of our collective expressions of our abiding friendship. And our offer of infinite hospitality towards you and others of your particular ethnicity.

My regrets also, at the overt and thoughtless action of that imbecilic individual here on OLO, who seeks some form of notoriety by quoting S.18c of a statute, he'd barely be able to comprehend. Still, you're a much bigger individual Chek LING, to understand such people are both rare, and not very bright I'm afraid ?

Chek Ling

I read your post with dismay.

My Grandparents and my parents were the world's greatest white supremist racists.

That was in line with the nature of their society and beliefs.

I struggle greatly to shrug off their legacy to me. It is sometimes difficult. Times like these when they are subject to criticism they cannot answer are difficult. I loved and respected them all for the great many positives they introduced into my life.

One of those was to have an open and inquiring mind. Another was not to dwell in the past and to be positive about our future.

It is my greatest achievement that both my children carry the values of my parents and the things I have introduced into their lives.
,
While I have my faults which they have recognized and and discarded from their lives my parents and grandparents also had theirs. I have discarded many.

I am proudest that neither of my children have a racist bone in the their bodies.

Instead of carping back to the sins of the long dead past it would be better to say, gee Australia has really steeped forward. Isn't that a magnificent achievement.