The author shows he completely misunderstands ohr western concepts of free speech, the workings of our democratic system of government a d our mores revarding courtsey and manners.

His type of disruption to our society should be legislated against and outlawed. Offenders should be sent to reeducation camps, gulags or suffer extrajudicial capital punishment.

Tim would agree with that.

What a dangerous and crazy proposition: a "right to be heard"?

What's next if such a thing is accepted - will they forcibly remove my ear-plugs? will we be forced to listen to certain radio/television programs or read certain newspapers, then have to pass a test to prove that we heard/read and understood their content? or are we going to be forcibly dragged to scientology lectures?

The fact that the victim on the receiving end of this "right" happens to be a politician should make no difference - this very idea should be buried forever twenty thousand leagues under the sea!

Yuyutsu
I agree. The “right to be heard” implies an obligation on the listener to treat every fool, bigot, ideologue, conspiracy theorist and monomaniac with the same respect as someone who knows what they are talking about.

I also think this article provides some insight into how the left has talked itself into opposing free speech, which historically it sometimes championed. Its fundamental assumptions are dualism (the world is divided into victims and perpetrators) and identity politics – that a person’s right to protection and respect is determined by the categories they belong to (class, ethnicity, gender, religion etc). Hence, the vulnerable deserve privileged protection if they are members of “marginalised minorities” (presumably only some “marginalised minorities”, though – I guess paedophiles are not on the list of those with a “right to be heard”). From this it’s just a short step to believing that closing down debate and shouting down ministers trying to explain government policies is democratic.

Free speech is a fundamentally liberal value that has at its heart respect for the dignity and autonomy of the individual. Collectivist ideologies that prioritise peoples’ rights according to the categories to which they belong are fundamentally at odds with this.

Rhian,
Agreed but you spoke in haste on pedophiles and the support they receive from the Left.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNyXxzt6DAA

How 'Gay' Laws Set Stage for Paedophilia Rights:

http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/gay-laws-s...

Harriet Harman -- Paedophile Apologist:

http://www.rockingphilosophy.com/2014...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...

APA Tries to Reclassify Paedophilia as a Sexual Orientation:

http://www.rockingphilosophy.com/2013...

EU Report Advocates Teaching Masturbation To Newborns:

http://www.rockingphilosophy.com/2013...

German Paedophile Group:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/z...

J O M Live one day in the shoes of a Gay person, then you might learn of the stigmatization, demeaning of being and persecution Gay people live with daily.

The other point that comes to mind is how some equate not getting your own way with not being listened to or not being heard.

I don't know a lot about Pyne, what I've seen has left me less than impressed but I wonder how the protestors know that he has not given consideration to the points they make. I assume that Q&A was not the first time that he would have had access to the main points of the protestors case.

I do think it is encumbant on those seeking to represent us to take the time to consider all main parts to a case. That does not somehow create the time for a minister to listen to every individual who wishes to put a case.

My impression is that the ral argument is not that the protestors have not been heard, its that they did not get what they wanted. Try making a right out of always getting your own way.

R0bert