I thought I was going to be in for a dose of trots with this garbage and I was right.

I only get 350 words to refute all this crap and I'm not sure I could do it in less than a thousand.

"Freedom of speech and thought is critical to a well-functioning, liberal democracy. But...."

(That 'But' means you're full of it.
That means you don't support free speech - only YOU are allowed to run down and disparage)

There's no way you could spout all this utter crap anywhere and actually believe it other than learning it from University.

What a pathetic little muppet.

- Give me the same opportunity to refute your bs and I'll do so with ethics and arguments that hold merit, and I'll prove all your crap wrong.

'Mindful that there is no monopoly on truth'
Arguing that there can be multiple truths?

Why don't you going and promote psychosis elsewhere numbnut?

The truth is the truth you idiot.
Sometimes there are many truths or (points of view) and you must look at the bigger picture.

But the big picture is that you lefties are completely batshite crazy.
- Holding the nation hostage with your backwards and deranged ideas.

Oh and in case you aren't aware boys have a penis and girls have a vagina.
Unless there's another gender that has a square-circle shaped genitalia I'm unaware of, that's all there is you dumbass.

Barnes shows how the training of lawyers leads to sickness today. There would be no need for a right if we did not have the godless feminist/Marxist denying the natural order of things and doing their best to destroy this country that has given them so many privileges. One wonders what hope we have as a nation we read such putried nonsense from a 'leading' lawyer. No wonder Trump calls for the draining of the swamp.

Dear AC,

Oh cry me a bloody river.

I'm afraid you are getting called out on this one mate.

Barns' article was 850 words long. You can post 4 times on an article within a 24 hour period. You have 3 left with a limit of 350 words per post giving you a 1050 word platform to "Give me the same opportunity to refute your bs and I'll do so with ethics and arguments that hold merit, and I'll prove all your crap wrong."

No excuses my little chest thumping muppet. Put up or shut up.

Yes but first I have to give a crap.
And there's an army of these nutjubs.

Cut one head off and 2 grow back.

I told you all many times we've sold out to globalism.
There is no 'National' because there's a war against 'nationalists';
- As clearly evidenced by this retards narrative.

I'm not going to waste my time with these carbon copy idiots being pumped out daily with their weird globalist ideas.

I'M NOT REQUIRED TO REPEAT MYSELF EVERY BLOODY TIME ONE OF THESE FOOLS OPEN THEIR TRAPS

I'm Australian (10th+ generation on my Non-Indigenous side + my Great Grandfather was a CO on the Battlefield at Gallipoli so I've earned the right to have my say and if you disagree tough luck), and I support populist politics and I support Nationalism.

"If we are to blunt the populist right."

Why do you want to do that for?
-Don't I have the right to an opinion?
-Don't I have the right to a say?
-Doesn't my vote count you bloody ignoramus?

He's a 'Democracy only works until you reach your destination and then get off' kind of guy.

I's more or less the same as me saying:
"If we off'ed all the lefties life would be great, we wouldn't have to listen to all this backwards rot anymore".

- He wants to disparage against me, and then spin this bullcrap where he comes out clean at the end.

"But there is a world of difference between, on the one hand, being heard, and, on the other, injecting ideas into discourse in a manner that is respectful of others and is mindful that there is no monopoly on truth or what is deemed to be the best for a society."

- Blow it out your backsides, the pair of youse.

Why is there a worry about the apologies of tomorrow-land when there are still issues of today to sort through? Who cares if this harms international reputation that requires an appology? Why shouldn't the first concern be to ensure that you are taking care of your own country well enough to take on the responsibility of opening the gates to refugees.

It's like a caring heart going to an animal shelter and wanting to rescue them all. No doubt this is a good attitude to show a healthy heart, but to actually take in all of the animals of the shelter would only put them in a worse condition because the person adopting them won't have the resources to care for all of them.

This is the problem with the refugee problems in today's world. The need is there, people should be welcoming to the immigrants that come. But that said, all the nations that are doing this are taking in too many refugees with little or no return and resources are being strained.

Sort throughout the issues of today, to make the hopes of tomorrow possible instead of fretting over an apology that holds no value to an international community struggling with the same issues, or making demands that they themselves don't do. An appology to hypocracy is a wasted worry. Better to work on today. Make the crime, the gangs, and the dangers wane off before even working about the days of tomorrow's international community. Shore up jobs and homes for the residents and the foreigners who move in, so that they are taken care of because that is the issues of today. Who cares about reputation in tomorrow's international world. They are fickle people who complain about everything.

"Populism", is what real democracy is all about, my dear Greg Barnes. If your policies are "popular", then a majority of people will vote for you. If you have a problem with "populism" and "majority rules". then your best bet is to immigrate to a country where a minority of elitists like yourself, who think they know what is best for the lowly peasantry, use force to keep their pampered positions while they ruin their own countries with their own no longer "populist" policies.

Your position also connects "populism" with the Right. Not so, old boy. The Left has used "populism" for decades, mainly the tactic appealing for the votes from the unproductive elements in society by saying "Vote for me and I steal the money from the productive people in society and give it to you." That "populism" has worked a treat for the Left, most recently in Venezuela. Well, it worked for a while in Chile and Venezuela, anyway. But sooner or later, your socialist comrades run out of somebody else's money to steal to be "populists" and buy votes.

Next readers, please note the stereotypical compulsive need of our little socialist friend Greg Barnes to think that he and his causes are the epitome of morality. Throughout history, the worst kinds of totalitarians had this puritanical streak of evangelical moralising towards their inferiors. It is a sort of pathology where their need for a positive self image of themselves trumps the idea of any sort of loyalty towards their own society. Pure narcissism.

The only thing that Greg got right was his observation that the entire western world is turning away from his socialist humanitarian causes. This is because the left are now the Establishment, and their policies have been catastrophic to their own communities. Despite the best propagandising efforts of the left wing media and their fake news, people are wising up. Australians only have to look at the shambles in Europe to figure out that you and your lefty causes will destroy their own civilisation.