I agree that freedom of speech should mean just that, and if some find that offensive then it would be reasonable to engage in conversation to find out why. The main problem with free speech from some is it sometimes leads to violence against a specific minority group member. History is full of pogroms against minorities that started out as simpley one person expressing an opinion. So I believe, we all need to be careful not to incite the simple minds of this world’s with rhetoric that they might turn in to violent action.

I agree the left and right wing labels are attributed to many different groups of people somewhat arbitrarily. My view is that politics is a circle. On one side you have intolerance that goes from denigrating other’s because they are different in some way, to exterminating them methodically , such as the Nazi’s did last century. On the other side we have people who accept differences of others. Using that as a measure, you could put all of your examples on one side of the circle.
As for oppressors in history, there are many who you could accuse of that, from the early caveman days, to the present. As a general rule of thumb I would say the oppressors are the ones with the strongest military force, who use it to expand their territory.

As I don’t live in Australia I am not that familiar with the case you refer too.

Chris

I'm a left-wing radical feminist, but even I am getting to the point that political correctness is driving me nuts.

When you can't have a reasonable debate about immigration, or question the dubious global agenda on multiculturalism, without being automatically accused of being racist and xenophobic.

When you can't criticise the sexualisation of women in the culture, without being accused of being 'cis-gender' or sex negative.

When you can't criticise destructive US-foreign policy, without being accused of being anti-American.

When you can't criticise Israel's brutal treatment of the Palestinians without being accused of being anti-Semitic.

When you can't question why Muslim women living in Western cultures need to wear the niqab in public, without being accused of being Islamphobic.

The list goes on and on ...

There was a time when recognising the differences of others was mature and sensible. But now, the liberal mainstream has hijacked this to impose an either-or censorship on anyone who criticises accepted dicriminated-minority norms.

To Lefty One.

Incitement to violence is an already accepted limitation on free speech. But Australia's 18C goes far beyond that, as the Andrew Bolt case, and the case against the four Queensland university students attests. If you really are a left wing liberal, then could I remind you that freedom of speech has traditionally been a left wing cause?

Tolerance is not a moral absolute. If you tolerate everything, you stand for nothing. The fact that everybody on planet earth prefers to live among their own kith and kin, people with whom they feel safe, is a cultural universal. Human beings are tribal and territorial. That is in our DNA. You can no more expect human beings to divest themselves of their own ethnic, religious, or cultural identity to create world peace, than you can expect teenagers to refrain from sex to prevent over population.

Tolerance for minorities is a primarily white, Protestant, Christian cultural ideal, the very culture which lefties wish to submerge and destroy through immigration and birth rate differentials. Any cultures acceptance of tolerance towards minorities is primarily a factor of their own cultural conditioning. Muslims are famously intolerant of everyone who is not a Muslim (or even the right sort of Muslim), yet western people are expected to tolerate them.

Every advanced civilisation on this planet (and probably thousands of other planets) has spread itself through armed force. Civilisation advanced at the point of a sword. Most of the time, this was a good thing for the human race. Usually it was because the warlike nomadic people considered the settled and civilised people to be easy meat. Civilisation had to expand into it's borders into barbarian lands to protect their own people, and bringing civilisation to the tribes usually benefitted the tribes anyway. If the expansion of civilisation through force had never happened, the human race today would consist of hundreds of thousands of warring tribes, and we would still be shivering around our campfires

Hi Lefty One,

Everything is complicated.

Your statement that " .... On the other side we have people who accept differences of others .... " could have been - was - applied to the 'differences' between slave-owners and slaves, and to the 'different' rights of both men and women to the vote.

Or of course, the very different rights that Muslim women have from those of men under any system of Shari'a law: that is an abomination that we must be constantly on our guard against, since Muslim Australian women should surely have the same rights as any other Australians.

Perhaps if we added the clause, that despite such differences, all people have equal and inalienable rights ? We would then have:

" .... On the other side we have people who accept differences of others, in the context of equal and inalienable rights .... "

What do you reckon ?

Cheers,

Joe

Yes, a little bit wordy but i would agree with that.
On your point about sharia law, I wonder if you have talked to a devout Muslim regarding their opinion of that law and how it effects them. I am sure if you went and visited your local mosque someone would be only to happy to talk to you.

Chris

Hi Chris,

My perception of the limits of political correctness is that they stop at any suggestion of diminished rights of any group, particularly women, on any grounds whatever, including culture and religion.

I'm happy for anybody to come to Australia on the condition that they recognise equal rights before the law for all, especially for women. Alternative legal systems, even under the guise of religious or cultural practice, should have no place in any country which calls itself a democracy.

And I don't give a toss if that distresses anybody. That's very much their problem.

Cheers,

Joe