the article was well written and makes some good points, but I think the author draws too long a bow about some things. He says "Ironically, Leyonhjelm’s approach would also render democracy unworkable. Democracy requires a public sphere in which people can participate and speak without fear of humiliation, intimidation and offense." That is simply not true. The USA has a workable democracy and their free speech is guaranteed by the constitution.
We can insult and humiliate people about being fat, stupid, ugly, drug users, White, rednecked, bigoted etc perfectly legally and I haven't seen any shortage of fat, bigoted rednecked stupid people engaging in democracy. Which raises the question, why should there be one particular characteristic that is out of bounds for discussion?
Some people won't engage in public discussion because they cannot bare listening to anyone say anything they disagree with. Thats fine.
Lots of people don't like playing contact sports because they don't like getting hurt. It shouldn't stop the rest of us enjoying robust debate about important issues

The Author goes on to say how bolts ideas were just fine, but the way they were written was the problem. That is even worse because it reserves discussion and debate for those with sufficient intellect, skills and education to produce the necessary words to discuss these issues without offending anyone. Well unfortunately that excludes most of the population. Debate would be left for that select group of elite highly educated people like the author. The rest of us uncouth ignorant yobbos have to just remain silent.

Let us get one thing absolutely clear about 18C. 18C was enacted solely to do one thing, to prevent criticism of our new state sponsored ideology of multiculturalism. It is very easy to criticise multiculturalism, just point out the negative consequences of importing ethnic and religious groups who are causing serious social strife within Australia.

But under 18C you can't do that. By pointing out the negative effects that some imported groups are having, you are supposedly "offending, insulting, and intimidating" them. So no discussion, or else.

The stupidity of such a policy can best be seen in Sweden. Like Australia, it is illegal in Sweden to point out that Sweden is now the rape capitol of the world, and the overwhelming majority of offenders are recently imported Muslims and black Africans. Under Swedish law it does not matter if this is a fact and absolutely true, you can not say it. You must not speak the truth. Recently, a Swedish politician was arrested and charged for saying it.

Any legislation which suppresses the truth is, under western secular thought, immoral legislation. Anyone who uses spurious logic to justify suppressing the truth is under western secular philosophy, an immoral person.

The western world became the most inventive, prosperous and admired culture on this planet because we 500 years ago began to reject the notion that any religion, idea, or social theory was beyond criticism. I find it incredible that this principle, already a done deal for so long, now needs to be defended again from the zealots of today who do not want their ideologies examined and criticised.

If multiculturalism needs to stop people speaking the truth for it's continued propagation, then there is obviously something fundamentally wrong with it. It is just as morally bankrupt as every other ideology or religion which needed state sponsored repression to make it work.

Hi LEGO,

When Boas and Benedict and Mead were defending their notion that 'all cultures are equally valid in their own context', I think they meant 'in their own societies, environments and ethical frameworks'. Even to them, 'race' was immaterial. Surely they didn't mean validity at all times and places: that if it was 'valid' for nine-year-old girls to be married off in tribal societies, it didn't necessarily mean that it was okay for the nine-year-old children of migrants to other countries, with different ethical, legal and moral frameworks, to be married off.

Whether they were right even in the first place is debatable. Is burning for witchcraft ever 'valid' ? A bloke from Papua-New Guinea has just been given sanctuary in Australia as a refugee, after fleeing from his homeland after accusations that he was a sorcerer. A teacher in Bougainville has recently been beheaded as witch.

As an internationalist, I'm very wary of arguments for, say, the stoning of women for adultery in countries where it is a 'valid' cultural practice, or the marriage of under-age girls, i.e. their trading between families, just because it is part of 'culture'.

But if nothing can be done about such barbarism, at least in Australia, we can - and must - be vigilant that the rights of all, especially women and children, are protected, and that intolerable cultural practices elsewhere are not brought into Australia in the luggage of immigrants.

Enlightenment values may have been developed, painfully and slowly, in the West, against a range of reactionary forces, the churches, 'custom', and yes, 'culture'. Their implicit intent was to be freely applicable for all societies: after all, why should equality before the law, equality of women and men, the right to vote, etc. be reserved only for Western societies ? Wouldn't that be the most blatant racism ?

[TBC]

{continued]

Values and 'culture' are not 'racial': 'race' is irrelevant in discussions about values and culture. Those with poor arguments against criticisms of cultural practices of course try to blur these factors. Criticism of cultural practices is not hatred of the people practising them, and certainly not 'race hate'.

But such criticism necessarily involves offending some, particularly those who benefit from them, usually men. Culture, after all, is power inscribed in social relations between men and women, and therefore usually favours men. In that sense, the Enlightenment and 'culture' are always potentially at odds, antagonistic to each other's roots. So the possibility of offending someone is integral to the expression of Enlightenment values and is perfectly justified by them.

To criticise cultural practices, and the constant, covert attempts to import them, is to challenge male power in those ethnic groups which practice them. They may see criticism, and probably quite rightly, as insulting, even denigrating, their 'culture', i.e. the power structures within the practising group.

But, in Australia, the subordinated sub-groups within those ethnic groups are Australian, like you and me, dear reader: they are entitled to the opportunities and protections of the Australian law. Whatever cramps their exercise of those rights fully deserves to be criticised and insulted and they should be enabled to liberate themselves from the shackles, if that's what they are, of oppressive 'culture' and unequal power structures.

Cheers,

Joe

To the author: thank you for an excellent analysis, and to all posters for a stimulating read which I have enjoyed immensely.

@Loudmouth, Tuesday, 30 August 2016 11:32:06 AM

Howdy Joe.

I think your comment:

"...that may be what Bolt was on about. Maybe we should both do time, for sarcasm." is right on the money.

It always seemed to me that Mr. Bolt was clearly angry at what he perceived to be rorting the system by a certain group or class of persons, but unfortunately for him, it was largely his sarcasm IMO that landed him in strife.

At the same time, I am much inclined to agree with Rhys Jones, Thursday, 1 September 2016 7:27:19 PM when he comments that: "I do think that Debate would be left for that select group of elite highly educated people like the author. The rest of us uncouth ignorant yobbos have to just remain silent." That's a pretty good summary of where we are at presently and perhaps reason enough why Section 18C needs revisiting.

I think the author's reference to the remarks of Judge Ronald Sackville is appropriate and welcome.

In conclusion Joe, I have read your long post of Monday, 5 September 2016 wish to take this opportunity to thank you for an exercise in clear thinking. A bit of that goes a long way.