A licence to offend is not necessarily a free pass "to vilification, intimidation and bullying", there is no justification for making such a sweeping statement,this is really drawing a longbow! Of course there are limits to the exercise of free speech,such as the famous example of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, or racial villification. Just where does the author propose to set the limits to free speech? Examples please.David knoll writes "..liberty is measured not by the freedoms exercised by one person...".Really? How can our freedoms be of any value unless they are exercised by us as individuals?

I am also concered that the Holocaust doesn't fade from memory or history, we must remember the other victims of the Nazis, the Roma and Slavs,who seem to have been forgotten.

If we applied David Knoll's principles we wouldn't allow some Israeli politicians to speak in public in Australia,would we?

I read Mac's comment above and can quite see his point...and yet I found myself agreeing with much that the author had to say.

Undoubtedly our society has become desensitised to the power of words.

Most of us believe that the rhetoric of politicians, advertisements, salespeople and many public figures are not worth the paper they are written on.

Even when our leaders have been caught telling outright lies there is no groundswell of indignation and outrage at the act of lying: merely at the manipulation of political expediency.

In the community at large this 'licence to offend' seems somehow to have become entrenched as freedom of expression. Indeed, even on this forum, protesting that rights carry responsibilities and that social mores should not include deliberate vilification, disrespect, and offensiveness is met with baying accusations that one is trying to limit freedom of speech - and often leads to increased abuse.

I believe that the concept of rights and freedoms is imperfectoy understood by many- either that, or they are deliberately ignored with impunity. We are becoming a society of bullies: not solely in the physical sense; but where the most outspokenly offensive, loudest abuser, regardless of logic or truth, wins the day.

The right to say whatever you want as long as nobody is offended is a definition of free speech where it doesn't exist.

>> even on this forum, protesting that rights carry responsibilities and that social mores should not include deliberate vilification, disrespect,
>> and offensiveness is met with baying accusations that one is trying to limit freedom of speech

romany, i'll try not to bay, but this is usually what such calls are doing, seemingly what you are doing, and definitely what knoll is doing. you may argue for that limitation, but let's not pretend that's not what is being called for.

and frankly, i think knoll's article makes an awful case for it.

central to the Australian ethos of a “fair go”

My experiences of what constitutes a “fair go” in Australian society differ somewhat from the author’s. I would suggest that the ‘fair go” exists within the different tribal groups that an individual belongs to at any particular point in time - be it religious group or as a football supporter.
He can’t be too bad – he supports the Broncos and just like us he hurls abuse and anything he can get his hands on at the opposition supporters.

Our technological world has just made it easier to hurl abuse at some other tribe member and claim it is done under the umbrella of free speech.

Hatred of others comes initially from the attitudes within our own family.

Unfortunately, society must decide when it is appropriate to silence the peddlers of hate and misinformation – the cost of this is free speech.

Personally, I'm inclined to let the b*stards have their rant: Give 'em enough rope ...

The inherent problem with vilification laws is that you can end up in a situation where no-one is allowed to disagree with anyone, because it "offends" them.

Fringe religious groups, especially the ones that worship bad science fiction writers, are only too aware of this, and are well prepared to (ab)use it.

I understand the concerns raised in this article, but in the end it doesn't propose a workable solution.

The article itself demonstrates the problem. If there is no license to offend, then surely it would not be permissable to call Mohammad Khatami an 'expert in doublespeak' or to accuse Philip Frier of giving a platform to racial hatred and genocide. I would certainly be offended if I was the target of those kinds of labels and accusations.

And yet this kind of robust debate is vital, and as I suspect is the case in these remarks, sometimes the truth is offensive. I'm not sure of the exact answer to David Knoll's concerns. But I am sure that removing the license to offend is not the right approach.

Yeah...looks all well and good through my rose-coloured glasses, but who is going to decide what is offensive?

I could suggest that limiting someone's speech is a form of bullying in itself.

Some people find having the mickey taken out of them offensive, others do not. Some people are more sensitive than others. I personally like politically incorrect comedians (not all of them, but a fair few)- will they find themselves in the firing line? Are my friends going to be told they can't call me a Pom anymore because others find it offensve?

Where is the line going to be drawn on free speech and under whose direction?

I am frequently accused of being offensive or abusive here on the forums, yet I rarely set out to be either. Is it my responsibility to ensure that all those who choose to be offended are not, or is it their responsibility to read what I write in the context in which it is written?

Frankly, there are far too many who are simply too "precious" and are keen to find offence in every utterance, often in an attempt to stifle discussion. Pro-Zionists are one of the most obvious examples, along with some other religiously-based interest groups, radical feminists and any other group that finds it advantageous to make a claim for victimhood that can't be sustained with rational argument.

The problem with limiting people to inoffensive speech is that powerful organised groups, such as the pro-Zionists, can swamp any attempt to discuss matters of broad interest with claims of offence taken. In the lead up to the holocaust, the Brown Shirts and Black Shirts were quick to take offence at all sorts of things and enforce its suppression. The Nazis rose to power in a nation that was quite simply not allowed to disagree with the dominant paradigm and had no information with which to do so. They made a claim to victimhood for the whole German nation (except the people they wanted to paint as oppressors or as antithetical to the good of the nation - every victim needs an oppressor) and proceeded to act grotesquely with no questions askable by the people who they claimed to be acting for, on pain of being considered one of the "enemies of the State".

In short, the only ones to gain from a limitation of the right to free speech are the entrenched interests. If a subject is controversial or if it is inherently offensive, there may be all the more reason to discuss it.

It would appear that in the last few decades we have all become delicate flowers that need to be protected from anyone saying anything that we don't like.

Already in the work place employers can be sued by individuals that take offense, and harassment is defined as where any individual is exposed to anything that makes him/her feel harassed.

This leads to ridiculous examples such as some years ago in NYC a male co worker paid a female co worker what he thought was a compliment, and she complained to her boss that he was mocking her, and he was fired, and successfully sued the company for wrongful dismissal.

Whilst this is an extreme example, the result today is that in order not to offend anyone, one has to be so PC to the standards of the day that free expression is but a distant memory.

A prime example of this is the compulsory internet filtering proposal, where individual net filtering software is free.

The author states
'so little from a history where the licence to offend has led to social decay and even genocide, '

The license to defend does not cause genocide. Hatred, pride and hard hearts lead to genocide. Bob Brown offends me almost every time he opens his mouth but I hold no hatred towards him or his like. No doubt he would hold the same contempt for Fred Nile and his views and get genocide or violence is not promoted by either person. Recent vilification of George Bush and John Howard have hardly been matched in history. Mr Obama who does not know they don't speak Austrian in Austria is still seen to be an intellectual giant by the adoring media despite many slip ups in his early days. I think our socialist press in actually incapable of not vilifying.

There are many problems with attempting to restrict freedom of expression (not that we actually have a freedom of expression here in Australia - unless there is some attempt to legislate for it about which I am unaware?)
1. Freedom by its definition implies a lack of restrictions - if there are conditions of expression then perhaps we should call a spade a spade - here are your 'Conditions of Expression'.
2. What ever is passed into law will be used against YOU
3. Open discussion of any topic must at some time offend almost everyone - otherwise we are not really getting down to the nitty gritty. If someone is not offended then we have skirted around the facts, prefabricated explanations, lied about the impacts, cossetted the participants in comfortable cotton wool.
4 'And Iran, of course, continues to sponsor terrorist organisations across the globe.' Linking terrorism, violence, bullying and intimidation with free speech is a spurious argument. It is NOT free speech which creates these aspects of human nature, and placing conditions on free speech will not eliminate them. I suspect that they survive in our society because we have become afraid of free speech, and are no longer willing to speak up and stand up for what we believe in. We have become afraid.
5. Oppressive regimes ALWAYS restrict expression because they recognise the power of expression, communication etc as an essential tool for an informed and empowered community. Real opposition is not possible without freedom of expression, freedom of print, freedom of organisation etc
6. 'Offense' is a very personal notion. What you find offensive I may find acceptable. Offense is also a very manipulable term - 'I find that offensive,' can be used as a form of censorship itself, or as a way of controlling unwanted, confronting or challenging information.

Communities need ways of communicating in respectful ways - this does not however involved censorship or the restriction of expression.

Make free speech illegal and extremists will no longer try and defend their views in open debate; they will go straight to bombs and guns. It's much better to have one's enemies out in the open than behind closed doors. Let people say whatever they want, as long as the people who disagree with them have the same opportunities. That's how minds are changed.

And I sincerely hope there are some people who find MY views offensive; if there aren't then I'm not trying hard enough.

I'm with Clownfish on this.

Once you start applying value judgments on one person's free speech as compared to another's, you are in the realm of control, not liberty.

Using some form of abstract concept, such as "society", isn't going to help either. That's just a word that is used by people who wish to bend others to their will.

Suppressing voices that express views that a group finds "vile" is not going to stop those voices. It will only serve to make them less visible, which is a bad thing (as in: know your enemy). It would also provide the previously-vilified withan artificial sense of security.

They're still out there, and they're still out to get you. It's just that we can't see them any more.

There are a lot of things in life that are less than sweet-smellingly pleasant to everyone on the planet. Facing up to them rather than pretending they don't exist is a sign of maturity.

Bushbasher - I must have expressed myself clumsily. Was on the way to class so didn't have time for an edit.

I did say that I could see both sides of the argument: both the article's and Mac's.

Didn't in any way mean to insinuate that any more damn laws should be passed...we already find our lives bounden and our freedoms limited by a plethora of ridiculous laws.

You might know that, when I'm not wearing my Academic hat, I'm wearing my journalistic one and so the right to freedom of speech is one of the basic tenets of my life.

What I find objectionable are those who misuse this freedom. As in anything, those who misuse any freedoms are the ones who are responsible for the curtailment thereof.

I am not in the least precious, but I did mean that last sentence: "We are becoming a society of bullies: not solely in the physical sense; but where the most outspokenly offensive, loudest abuser, regardless of logic or truth, wins the day." THAT is what I was objecting to.

Freedom of Speech gives people the right to express their views, ideas and opinions. Those who disagree with this expression also have the right to voice their opinion. Being "punished" with personal villification, abuse, belittlement and/or humiliation effectively quashes opposition. Such behaviour thus becomes a bullying tactic which effectively curbs an opponents own freedom.

I find this anathema.

Oh ... gimme a break.

This article is only masquerading as an article about hate speech versus freedom of expression. It's real agenda is to keep us firmly in Israel's corner as the tensions inexorably mount towards the almost certain endgame of war with Iran (oh ... provoked by Iran, of course).

What's important is to slowly break-down the resistance of us thoroughly war-weary Westerners to the very real prospect of a nuclear confrontation between the two countries.

It won't be that hard a task. After all, we Westerners are real pushovers. We all fell for the Iraq WMD routine, and before that the Kosovo genocide routine. Now we're being buttered up with the Iran hates Israel routine.

Of course, we have nothing against the Iranian people, mind you ... who will bear the brunt of it all - along with the Israeli population. Just those Israel-hating, Holocaust-denying, Sharia Law thumping, civilisation-clashing mad mullahs who we all know are just desperate to get their hands on nuclear wea-, I mean ... energy

Bit late to get rid of global hatred with all the atomic artillery, but here goes.

Under Online Opinion it seems hopeless to try to find a Middle Road which supports any historical thesis like Sharing the Blame.

Does this mean that our OLO chiefs have their own theories of the way our arguments should be focusing?

Not that we are in love with Russia, but under a recent study we found that it has been modern Russia which has been the most successful in peacefully coming to terms with Islamics as regards religion.

To be sure under the Soviets portions of Greater Russia were able to exist comparatively peacefully without politically pushing the superiority of Western based religions against those based non Western.

Not to lose any respect for Christianity while backing the above argument, but mainly to express that trying to maintain the terrible Old Testament tale doing away with the unbelievers of the Promised Land sounds much too much like Nazism.

Us bush schoolkids years ago were so excited wondering in what way the evil ones were put to death?

There is a belief among historians, in fact, that if the boy Jesus is true, while he was in Egypt with his mother, he was more likely to have been influenced by Hellenistic wise men from the Great Library of Alexandria than by those normally around him still supporting the Old Testament.

Looks like the Sermon on the Mount may still have the best reasoning for a nicer world, at any rate.

Cheers, BB, WA.

SFJ,

You cynic! I agree, we've all seen these transparent attempts at gathering sympathy previously, far too often.

Don't you feel compassion for poor defenceless Israel surrounded by ferocious Palestinians armed to the teeth with, um, rocks and firework rockets. All Israel has to "defend itself" is billions of dollars worth of the latest products of the US arms industry.

I'm not surprised the Iranians are frightened of Israel given that country's aggressive policies.

We should let the Zionists fight their own wars,with their own young men and women,not ours. I say good luck to any local supporters of Israel who are desperate to provoke a war with Iran, join the IDF yourselves and stop attempting to transform a colonial war into a crusade. We didn't all fall for the WMD propaganda, by the way.

I disrespectfully suggest that those who propose implementing a ban on freedom of speech go live in countries where such bans are already in force.
Almost any Islamic country would do, with communist countries close behind and Canada bringing up the rear.
Or perhaps you might not have to if the Organisation of the Islamic Conference has its way.
With its increasingly strident moves to implement freedom of speech restrictions at the international level via UNHRC resolutions, our governments may well eventually capitulate and adopt the OIC measures so as not to offend anybody who doesn't want to hear that Muhammad was a terrorist who beheaded his enemies and raped their women.
Oops! I hope I didn't offend anyone.
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=360D2C52-C43C-4B44-A0A3-AA052E0B216C
http://www.prophetofdoom.net/Prophet_of_Doom_Islams_Terrorist_Dogma_in_Muhammads_Own_Words.Islam
Bottom line is that you can't abandon free speech without abandoning freedom.
We are merely custodians of the freedoms that those before us have won at their peril and owe it to future generations to fight to retain those freedoms.

Well, I think some of the comments on this article are pretty much a case in point.

If some of these people weren't allowed to publicly bang on with their bizarre views, we might not know what a bunch of wackers they really were.

romany, i respect (and use myself) the rushing-to-class defense. i think partially you expressed yourself clumsily, partially i disagree with you, and partially i am hugely sensitive on this issue.

australian seems to have no genuine understanding of free speech, that it comes at a price but the price is worth it. there is a tried and true tradition of australians declaring "i'm for free speech, but ...". what then follows makes clear they are not actually for free speech whatsoever.

in this way, i do not agree with you. i do not see "both sides". what i see are two distinct issues.

the first issue is the question of free speech. yes, yes: yelling "theatre" in a crowded fire, and so on. but you either see free speech as almost axiomatically precious, or you do not.

the second issue is, given free speech (or anyway) how does one foster a culture of thoughtfulness and respect?

the second issue is real. but it is fundamental that the second issue must not be confused with, or impact upon, the first.

are you doing that? i'm still not sure. but knoll undoubtedly is. and i think he is doing it in a distasteful and dishonestly handwringing manner.

one either believes in free speech or one does not. knoll does not.

david f: << The right to say whatever you want as long as nobody is offended is a definition of free speech where it doesn't exist. >>

David's nailed it.

Besides which, could there be any more idiosyncratically malleable notion than 'offence'?

Rather than trying to outlaw "offensive" expression, I think we should encourage more courtesy, respect and simple good manners in our interactions with each other.

No offence meant to anyone :)

Free speech in Australia has low status.

Page 3886/3 of the Current House Hansard of 16 December 1992 quoted Lionel Murphy saying, "Free speech is only what is what is left after due weight has been accorded to the laws relating to defamation, blasphemy, copyright, sedition, obscenity, use of insulting words, official secrecy, contempt of court and of parliament, incitement and censorship..." Is "due weight" not given to free speech? "Only what is left over" means free speech has no value in itself. Any other consideration can override it. Hopefully, this is not the prevailing attitude to free speech in Australia. "Only what is left over" is consistent with the value of free speech in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia or Khomeini's Iran. People in all three countries had the right to say anything the government didn't ban them from saying. Free speech points out the wrongs in our society and protects cultural expressions that differ from the prevailing view. It has great value in an open society. One can examine those areas which Murphy's quote values over free speech.

Defamation has been used in both Australia and the United Kingdom to deflect criticism by such as Robert Maxwell and Jo Bjelke-Petersen. Defamation laws should be eliminated and possibly replaced by well drawn libel laws which do not provide prior restraint and do not insulate public figures from criticism.

Blasphemy is a ridiculous crime

Sedition acts have been used in many jurisdictions to prevent criticism of the government. Sedition acts generally exist where there is no concept of a loyal opposition.

Obscenity? Obscenity is difficult to define. Some do not find violence obscene. I do not find any nonviolent sexual act involving only consenting adults obscene. Some are not to my taste.

"Use of insulting words" requires extensive definition. Any words referring to my weight can be insulting, but it is not a reasonable subject for legislation.

"Official secrecy" has in the UK banned a book called "Spy-Catcher" which is available in other English speaking countries.

Contempt of parliament and the system have also been used to stifle criticism.

CJ Morgan:"Rather than trying to outlaw "offensive" expression, I think we should encourage more courtesy, respect and simple good manners in our interactions with each other."

And less leg-humping...

Still, it looks like the author has very much misjudged the mood of OLOers and I'm very glad to see it. We can only create change inasmuch as we disagree with the status quo and are prepared (and allowed) to speak up about it

A tricky responsibility is free speech, one person's sincerely meant opinion may be offensive to another simply because that opinion is in conflict with a religion or ideology. The claim to having a right to free speech is often deliberately manipulated to cause hurt and insult.

If person A claims "my point of view is":
1.
2.
3.
For the following reasons; 4, 5, and 6.

The only 'offence' (I have used italics deliberately) this could cause is to someone whose beliefs are so deeply held that the very thought someone has a completely opposite belief to them cannot be tolerated. Sometimes, we call that reaction being a bit 'precious'. However, if the opinion is reasonably and sincerely expressed, whatever that opinion is, if it is taken as offensive then that is more the issue for the offended person than the one who has expressed themselves in courteous, respectful and reasonable terms.

A reasonable response would simply be to say, "I disagree because my POV is X and the reasons for it are 8, 9 and 10".

However, when the above is expressed along with derogatory terms such as "you are a 'feminazi-loving leg humping suck-hole'" for saying whatever POV has been expressed, well even a four-year old will know that is offensive and intended to insult.

Deeply held beliefs can be expressed passionately or in completely pragmatic terms, without resort to labelling, name-calling or deciding with malice the state of mind of another person or group of persons.

It is the cowardice of a bully who claims that someone else 'started it' for saying something the bully disagrees with. Even more cowardly is to try to justify malice by claiming the 'right' to free speech. Any 'right' always comes with responsibilities. Everything we do and say has consequences.

No-one has the right to malice, however, we all have the right to free expression. If someone cannot give an opinion without respect, then that results in lack of credibility (for the opinion) and indicates other issues such as anger, guilt and misanthropy.

A major omission in this article is a link to the debate that David Knoll refers to. It can be watched here http://www.iq2oz.com/events/event-details/2009-series/02-march.php and the audio can be downloaded here http://www.abc.net.au/tv/fora/stories/2009/04/03/2534072.htm It's worth a listen.

There are valid grounds for limiting freedom of speech that all of us endorse: inciting violence, a hoax fire alarm in a crowded theatre (as noted above), defamation, any speech intended to bring about harm or violence to others.

It strikes me that much of this debate comes about because we still don't have ways of dealing with speech that is hurtful, rather than harmful. However I tend to agree that 'offensive' is not grounds for curtailing freedom of speech - offence does not of necessity equal harm.

First, inciting violence or harm is fairly easy to define and test. By contrast, it's well-nigh impossible to define 'offence' in any consistent, enforceable way.

Second, there are higher values than freedom from offence. For example, in the eighties many claimed to be offended by discussion of sexual behaviour, but the success in fighting AIDS through promotion of safe sex has demonstrated that protecting some people from offence might have catastrophic consequences for others.

Third, the corollary of freedom of speech is the freedom to dispute and condemn any utterances you find offensive. Indeed the most effective strategy for dealing with offensive speech is to engage and discredit it, or even better, to allow it to discredit itself (hello, Pauline Hanson).

In a society that allows freedom of speech, stating that you're offended by what someone else has said is a legitimate form of discourse. Peter Andren, an audience member at the IQ2 debate, reminded us that in years past people who complained about abuse or vilification were told to stop being whingers and to turn the other cheek: "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me."

Continued

In a multi-faceted society, this simply isn't good enough (to extend CJ's argument above). Stating that you're offended is not the same as trying to restrict freedom of speech. We need to feel free to speak out when we're offended without having to deal with accusations that we're wowsers or whingers. An example of this type of accusation came from gay writer David Marr, one of Knoll’s opposing speakers in the IQ2 debate, when he took a crowbar to gay rights advocate Rodney Croome:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/tyranny-the-price-paid-for-not-giving-offence-20090331-9i7p.html

It’s not wowser-ish to insist on being treated with the same respect as everyone else. However there’s something very sinister in publicly howling down legitimate expressions of offence.

In my view, until all of us feel empowered to dispute the hurtful, we will continue to hear calls to limit free speech.

To return to Knoll’s article, for me, a powerful argument against limiting hurtful or even hateful speech is that it doesn’t work. Today Germany limits speech by prohibiting denial of the holocaust, promotion of racial supremacy, and use of Nazi insignia. The minute a right-wing organisation is banned, its sympathisers blithely start a new one. The swastika is displayed with three hooks or five, rather than four, and holocaust deniers simply use code phrases to convey their views that historians have been lying to them since 1945. So far, Germany’s right-wing lunatics have been sufficiently inventive to survive and indeed thrive, despite the restrictions.

To those who lost loved ones in death camps, and who today feel personally threatened by anti-semitic hate speech, hearing denials of the holocaust is excruciating. Yet placing limits on speech is a fruitless means of dulling the pain, because it simply doesn’t work.

Yes, Jonathan Sacks is right. However you can’t legislate for responsible speech, any more than you can legislate to stop people farting in church. Engaging hurtful and hateful speech is far more effective, and respecting people’s views when they state that they are offended is an important part of this engagement.

And of course there are ill-mannered oafs like Antiseptic who clearly intend to cause offence. However, if they want to behave like petulant four year-olds, then - as somebody else said - they should be free to do so as long as they don't cause any actual harm.

Certainly, it makes the puerile boofheads easier for adults to identify.

Free speech and insults are not related.

It is possible to express points of view and different ideas without insults and abuse. This is free speech. Insults and abuse are not free speech they are insults and abuse. Free speech cannot begin to exist until the insults and abuse end.

There is no free speech associated with the problems in Palestine. There is plenty of insults and abuse, and that is never going to lead to any sort of solution to the hatred between the Jews and the Palestinians.

Free expression of ideas has never caused hatred or genocide. Insults and abuse always leads to hatred, and often genocide.

Runner tells us that the "socialist" press is incapable of not vilifying.

If you want some good old time vilifying why not try USA Fox so called "news" and some of the "pundits" that infest it. And the various blogs etc that link into it too. Not much "socialist" sympathies to be found there. Try the huge man of fat Russ Limbaugh.

Or why not try the various right-wing propaganda hacks from the Murdoch press here in Australia. They are always vilifying someone, either individuals of groups (large and small). Andrew the DOLT does it in every rant that he writes.

I was close to agreement with you woulfe until this:

>>There are valid grounds for limiting freedom of speech that all of us endorse: inciting violence, a hoax fire alarm in a crowded theatre (as noted above), defamation, any speech intended to bring about harm or violence to others.<<

These are "false positives" in the realm of free speech, and unfortunately are used far too often as evidence that free speech should be curtailed.

"Inciting violence" is an entirely separate concept from freedom of speech. It is quite correctly an offence, but has nothing to do with the license to express an opinion.

"This country would be better off without immigrants" is an opinion that, when expressed within a normal social context, should be protected.

But in a public place, when followed by an exhortation to the assembly to do something about it ("Wogs OUT! Send the Mozzies home!) it clearly falls into the category of inciting violence.

Similarly, shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre cannot be protected as free speech, since it is a deliberate act of mischief. The same act in the privacy of one's home clearly demonstrates this.

Using these as evidence that "there are valid grounds for limiting freedom of speech that all of us endorse" completely undermines the logic of "we still don't have ways of dealing with speech that is hurtful, rather than harmful".

The tendency will always be to generalize from the particular. If I say to my mate Abdul over a coffee that I think he would be better off going back where he came from, he would undoubtedly be hurt. If I said the same thing to a crowd of rednecks from a soap-box in Hyde Park, that would be potentially harmful.

It would be better for all concerned if we avoided the invention of feel-good laws such that try to capture and isolate "hate speech" whatever its context, and concentrated on prosecuting those whose intent is to cause harm.

hatred has no power,as one who has gone through his entire life as'the victim'of hate,i am hated;...that wont be the reason for the new hatred laws nor offer any remedy..because the hatred-laws are by the same special-intrests trying to hide the reason for being despised

any how i have a wog_name,so am hated because i got the wrong name,the wrong name meant my family moved arround a lot trying to find the promise of this promised land[resulting in my not having peers]

not having'peers',i sought peers from the fellow outcasts and joined a bike_group,i thus became the hated and feared biker/outcast now legally called a'terrorist'

in time i out grew bikes and became a'doper'[i chose to smoke weed[only god can make a seed grow,read the bible gen 1;29[yep became a religious'kook'too],got a conscious and became a greenie,an activist,and banned blogger

i know hatred,..i lived my whole/life being hated,[yes im a crazy conspiracy-theorist too..911 was an inside job,..jfk wernt shot by ozwald,..suspect men never went to the moon,and know for fact global/cooling and global/warming is bull[the sun pours more energy into the earth in one day than a year of fossil-feul usage]

but,people out there that cry for govt-regulation dont want crazy/nutters talking about the zionista controled banking/system,or the new[same old]new world order,The powers that run this globe love posting fear based scams,and getting new powers under de-facto law powers[they even control the media,and the courts,run the prisons and hope to bring in their own fiefdoms,..with we allready and perpetually oppressed being their serfs

i dont resent the learnings i have had in being the eternal victim,i need no govt law,need no protection,seek to harm or hinder no one

this is my way to fight back to those claiming eternal victimhood[while really being the oppresor]i need no new[neo]man-made-law[gods ten work just fine[govt get out of my life,

if your not serving gods creation your hindering[serving the same old elites who changed gods 10 laws into their own fiefdom powerplay,...via legislated acts,govts and a fiat currency,ruled by govt revenue freedom sukkking public servants enforcing ever more statuted regulations

Feel just audio-bashing each other is getting us nowhere.

Getting on with each other, even the so-called opposite each other, reminds me of back in the early eighties, when as a mature age student, including my wife who was an art student, we were invited to spend a couple of months in Sri-Lanka, where surpisingly there is or was a reasonable population of Muslims.

Pretty well as soon as we got there, we were assembled before an American who warned us that though many of us were studying alternative religions, our learning was about how to get on with other peoples not to run them down.

While my historical study was Colonial Oppression and the Tea Economy, most of the younger ones were engaged in trying to be decent to all world populations.

Naturally all of us were invited to a prayer session in a huge Moslem mosque, and naturally we all also knelt down in respect for the hundreds of Muslims who attended.

Further, when my wife and I discussed about the prayer session later, we both agreed we felt the same kind of peacefulness we felt in our Church back home.

Also thinking about a Soviet cruiser anchored out from Colombo for a long time, and our younger female students flirting with snappy Soviet sailors, it was rather like a more modern Casablanca.

I think the author is really more interested in the justifying the Israeli case against the the Arabs than in any philosophical issue. A case of the pot calling the kettle black, neither side is on that of the angles. Bigotry in any flavour is a bitter concoction.
As my cousin is fond of saying “patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel” in this 100 + year war extremists on both sides have taken over the asylum.
It's sad to note after centuries of being the “victims” from diaspora and a genocidal wars that either side are so keen to inflict the same.

I find that those who insist the loudest about freedom of speech are usually the ones who respect it the least and abuse it most while being the most afraid of it.

I'm new here but look at these two programs and if you're not convinced that some thing's going horribly wrong then good luck.

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/449/video.html
It the above note the locations of the communal hut.

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/449/video.html
Note here the analogy with moving the rock and the boiling experiment.
Think of the climate change as an inertia wheel damn hard to get moving, but when so easy to keep running and nearly impossibly hard to stop. If we stopped pushing now i.e. stopped adding CO2 the wheel is moving how fast and how long would the damage continue? One thing is for certain the damage is INCREASING this means the water will probably rise faster as time progressed. Anyhow watch the videos they're interesting

cheer

David Knoll says: “The licence to offend has led to social decay and even genocide”

Blaming insensitive comments for social decay & genocide plays to popular bad-guy stereotypes, but doesn’t sync with the facts . It is hard to see any amount of bad-mouthing leading to genocide, unless, there were other contributing factors.

In the examples cited in the article modern Iran & Nazi Germany , and, others that could be cited, the Armenian genocide , Saudi fundamentalism:
-- one segment of society has an exclusive right to determine what is – offensive– .
--It has the right to deny voice to any contrary argument.
--It has a monopoly of policing powers.

It is noteworthy that in modern day Iran the slow erosion has already started,
with everything from soccer & pop music to childrens preference for barbie dolls being seen as a threat to the ruling class.

Real bullying power lays in the ability to cry “offence!” and shut down the “offending” source.

eAnt

"I find that those who insist the loudest about freedom of speech are usually the ones who respect it the least and abuse it most while being the most afraid of it."

I am in complete agreement with you. What I find amazing is that bullies complain when finally bought to task, they then claim they are the victims - talk about projection. Much.

Horus,
You have have hit the nail on the head.
Laws which enable people to shut down any form of free speech that they consider offensive eventually lead to totalitarianism as the well-meaning laws are manipulated by those with a less than altruistic agenda.
Case in point is the use of Dutch "anti-hatred" laws by the political opponents of parliamentarian Geert Wilders to criminalise him and remove him from the scene as the popularity of his party amongst the Netherlands population mushrooms.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025558.php#respond
These laws become anti-democratic weapons in the hands of the corrupt.
I'm not so sure about the slow erosion in Iran however. It seems pretty fast to me as the Iranian parliament moves to bring back the death penalty for apostasy.
http://www.christianpost.com/Intl/Persecution/2008/09/iran-parliament-approves-death-penalty-for-apostasy-bill-11/index.html

eAnt (and apologist Fractelle),
You said that you find "those who insist the loudest about freedom of speech are usually the ones who respect it the least".
Can you please point to any research that substantiates this statement.
You said "those who insist the loudest about freedom of speech are usually the ones who....abuse it most".
Can you please give us an example which supports your argument.
You said "those who insist the loudest about freedom of speech are usually the ones who....(are) most afraid of it".
Can you please justify this statement.
Or were you just gibbering?
This of course is your perfect right while we continue to enjoy freedom of speech.

Fractelle:"What I find amazing is that bullies complain when finally bought to task, they then claim they are the victims"

Do go on, this is fascinating. How about giving us a few examples? I looked up your previous quotation and couldn't find it anywhere. Do you think we could have a link to the post it came from? After you extricate your leg from the attentions of the Pomeranian, of course.

KMB:"Laws which enable people to shut down any form of free speech that they consider offensive eventually lead to totalitarianism as the well-meaning laws are manipulated by those with a less than altruistic agenda."

This is the crux of the matter. It gets worse when a segment of society is specifically given an entitlement to offend, while also having protection from being offended.

Thus, in our modern age we see a "Sex Discrimination Commissioner" who is not able to hear complaints about discrimination against men. The silence from the Commissioner is then taken by some to mean that she approves of such discrimination, when she has said quite clearly she does not, but is limited by legislation.

It is why we can have businesses and govt departments advertising services exclusively for women, ranging from gyms to finacial advice, to exclusively female clubs, swimming pools and the list goes on, yet at the same time historically exclusively male organisations have been forced to allow female membership on the grounds of discrimination.

Fortunately, the internet has given otherwise disempowered men an opportunity to have their case heard. It is interesting and goes directly to the point that many of the same radical feminists who were most vocal in support of their own right to free speech are most active in trying to suppress that of those who disagree.

‘Real bullying power lays in the ability to cry “offence!” and shut down the “offending” source.’ [Horus]

I say ‘Yippee!’

In that case, I want to put my hand up as a supreme example of the radical feminist bullies that Antiseptic is always being victimised by.

And … in my supreme sense of entitlement as a self-proclaimed radical feminist bully, I wish to assert my bullying power to declare Antiseptic an ‘offending’ source and to cry ‘offence’ at everything Antiseptic says about radical feminists – and any other kind of feminists as well.

So … whatever Antiseptic says about radical feminists (and any other kind of feminists as well) from here on in and henceforward and forever and ever is verily to be declared an ‘offence’.

Signed: The Most Supreme Rad Fem Ayatollah of the Ancient Society of Antediluvean Rad Fem Buffalo Bullies.

SJF

ROFL

A-septic isn't a bully, its just that no-one understands him when he labels people with such terms of endearment as "leg-humper".

Avagoodeaster

SJF, what makes you think I was talking about you? Self-important, much? Your brand of feminism isn't radical; it's a gravy-train riding exercise.

Fractelle, please explain how I have bullied anyone here, or anywhere. If you feel less than adequate to respond to things I say, it simply reflects your own estimate of your capacity, not my intent to silence you or "bully" you. If you feel threatened, it is entirely your own affair, for I not only wish you no harm, I have no way of doing you harm if I did. And it is still not my intent to silence or somehow coerce you.

I note that you constantly claim that sort of claptrap to avoid responding rationally to the rational points raised against your POV. I always give my reasons for my statements, feel free to contradict them if you can. To do otherwise is as weak as ...well, you get the drift.

As a free man, I have the ability not only to choose to be offensive, but also to choose to be offended.
If a small child says to me: "Oh thou fool" should I be offended, or should I just think the child is severely limited in the ability to discern complex nuances?
Allowing yourself to be offended is to give others the ability to govern your actions.
On the other hand, I think the most outstanding example of using the ability to be offended was that of Dr Mahatir, when he successfully turned the attention of the whole world from human rights abuses in his country by directing attention to the boorish remark of a loutish Australian PM.
I agree with CJ. While I hold (ad nauseum) to the ethic of reciprocity, if everyone is always unfailingly polite it just makes it that much more difficult to identify the assholes.

Grim I know I have 'offended' simply for expressing the following:

I am a feminist

I believe in the objectives of humanism

I support action for sustainable practices and a clean safe environment

I am an atheist

I also know that I have deliberately tweaked a few nerves here and there in order to reveal the a-holes on OLO.

One doesn't have to indulge in name-calling to offend – there are so many cleverer ways. But bullying is easy to recognise:

“Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves insulting or belittling one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensibly damning character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument.

This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.

This tactic is frequently employed as a propaganda tool among politicians who are attempting to influence the voter base in their favor through an appeal to emotion rather than by logical means, especially when their own position is logically weaker than their opponent's.”

A-septic asked me to find examples of the above, I have taken the time to oblige his request.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8766&page=0#138708
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8688&page=0#138414
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8688&page=0#138425

Didn't have to look very far.

Fractelle:"Didn't have to look very far."

It might have helped your case if you'd looked further. None of the examples you've given contain abuse, ad hominem, or any kind of bullying.

What they do contain is simple humour, derogatory certainly, but surely better than the abuse to which they were responding. I quote the Pomeranian:"unlike you I have a good sexual relationship with my loving female partner" and "Hopefully you'll come to terms with your inadequacies one day" and "Antiseptic's antipathy towards women", all because I have the temerity to disagree with the proposition that women deserve to be treated better than men do. Apparently he has become so fond of humping legs he now regards it as a special skill.

Now, off you toddle and see if you can find something that actually supports your claim. Do try to concentrate this time, and ignore the snuffling coming from the Pomeranian.

Grim: << While I hold (ad nauseum) to the ethic of reciprocity, if everyone is always unfailingly polite it just makes it that much more difficult to identify the assholes. >>

Indeed, and Antiseptic is unfailingly obliging in helping us to identify at least one of them.

There is a lot of emotionally manipulative language in the original article and one suspects that the author is trying to protect a personal position that he is not entirely comfortable with. If he was secure and content with his life choices he would not need to try and silence those who challenge them. The expression of opinion is one thing but the desire to try and hurt someone by words is entirely different. The latter is clearly an act of aggression and should be responded to appropriately. Trying to limit the freedom of speech so that we avoid the risk of being hurt is not an appropriate response to aggression. It is the response of someone who does not know how to deal with aggression and who probably suffers bullies and aggressive people in many other ways in their life.

The laws for vilification are similar. The notion that one person can make someone else behave in a way that they do not want to just by what they say is a dangerous precedent to accept. Hitler may have stirred up hatred against Jews but each person who committed an atrocity against a Jew has to take full responsibility for their behaviour. He could not make them do what they did not in their hearts want to do for whatever reason. The problem was not what Hitler said but what thousands of other Germans did. Those who want vilification laws are not addressing the real problem. The real problem is how to deal with aggressive behaviour.

‘Offended’ is just another term for hurt. If you are hurt by what someone says then it is more than likely your problem. If they are trying to hurt you then that is another matter and their should be consequences for them in their relationship with you. Just because there are no laws does not mean that we are powerless to deal with aggression.

phanto, the problem was what the thousands (millions?) of Germans who acted badly were lacking access to any information that would contradict Hitler and his goons. By the mid-30s the only news they got was carefully tailored by Herr Goebbels and his merry band of ad men and every public event was carefully orchestrated by Herr Speer to stay "on message" with the massive claim to victimhood and the concomitant resentment that was under the Nazi's message. Let's not forget that Hitler had huge public credibility thanks to the economic "miracle" that the Nazis brought about in the mid 30s. (It was just as epemeral as John Howard's "miracle" of the last decade, but that's the power of advertising). Aggressive behaviour is a part of human nature and will come out whenever a group feels resentment and can find a target for it. The real key is in giving free access to information and education so that the manipulation of the mob into specifically-targetted violence becomes more difficult. Individual acts of violence are a police matter, while large scale manipulation may well subvert the police as well. Fiji is a more local example of manipulation of ethnically-based resentment leading to violence against those of Indian descent and ultimately a military coup.

phanto:"If they are trying to hurt you then that is another matter and their should be consequences for them in their relationship with you"

bingo. The trouble for those of a "delicate" disposition is that they tend to find all sorts of things offensive that are not, to the objective observer. They also frequently conflate one idea with an entirely different one and take offence at the construct, although it is entirely their own product. Our society has encouraged this sort of thing for years now and it provides some who wish to avoid discussion a "get out if jail free card". The so-called SLAPP writs are an extreme example at a corporate level.

Pomeranian:"snufflrsnuffleyipwhine"

Haven't you put that neurotic excuse for a dog out yet, Fractelle? Your leg must be developing callouses.

I believe I qualify as an objective oberver, Antiseptic, as your vitriol has -so far- not been directed at me.
You are deliberately trying to be offensive. Your remarks concerning canine behaviour are misplaced and have no place in an adult conversation -particularly one on the power of hatred.
You do not impress, you do not inspire, and you most certainly do not intimidate.
In fact, your constant jibes can only be described as childish and immature, and reduce the credibility of your opinions.
So why do you bother?

Having lurked on this topic for a few days, I'd like to give my general thoughts as a feminist, before it drops off the radar …

As a feminist, I’m used to being perceived as, and treated like, the scum of the earth by certain sectors of the population. On mainstream online forums like this, being called a ‘femonazi’ and having feminism routinely referred to as a movement of hairy-legged man-haters are par for the course.

Far more difficult to deal with, however, is the endless conveyor belt of misrepresentations of feminism and/or unhelpful exaggerations of alleged feminist behavior - often made with the professed 'sincerity' of 'constructive criticism'. I tend to find this a far more insidious form of hate speech than name calling or obvious abuse terms.

Compounding the problem is that many of the people who routinely misrepresent feminism in this way are not overtly abusive, like Antiseptic. In fact, they are often nice, likable people who just have a bee in their bonnet about what feminism is supposed to represent.

They are also well served by a vast body of ‘male crisis’ pseudo-research and bestsellers – often financed and promoted by highly conservative organisations like the Heritage and Olin Foundations in the US and the Centre for Independent Studies in Australia – who also have a collective bee in their bonnet about what feminism is supposed to represent. While this pseudo-literature can sometimes contribute positively to the gender debate, more often than not, its agenda is to create ongoing straw fires for feminists to run around putting out.

When you know the truth from the inside of a movement that is being continually misrepresented, there is only so much time, effort and energy you can devote to putting readers right. Unfortunately, you have to choose your battles, and let a lot of others go. In the end, all you can do is put your trust in a mixture of humanity’s common sense and the innate justness of feminism’s cause – both of which require huge dollops of patience.

Dear SJF,

I am a male who read your post with great sympathy. You express yourself well.

I have never heard of the Heritage and Olin Foundations in the US and the Centre for Independent Studies in Australia. You have a limited audience on this string. An OLO article dealing with their output would be appreciated. Even I have never heard of them I may have been influenced by their output.

I realise that that I have had many regressive attitudes toward women that I have attempted to deal with. I have been married twice. My second wife is a feminist, and I have learned a lot from her. Had I known then what I know now I probably would still be with my first wife.

Please consider writing an article for OLO.

grim:"You do not impress, you do not inspire, and you most certainly do not intimidate."

Wondeful, that makes at least 2 of us, eh?

grim:"reduce the credibility of your opinions."

You responded to a perception of the tone of part of what I was saying, rather than the content of the post. Do you disagree with the 200 words or so that preceded my "Pomeranian" jest? If so, why? If not, how is my credibility reduced?

Think of my responses to the Pomeranian as being comebacks to a heckler. A discussion is difficult when the less-capable keep interjecting.

SJF:"they are often nice, likable people who just have a bee in their bonnet about what feminism is supposed to represent. "

And these people are in disagreement with your own views about that. Few of those "nice" people speak up because they don't want to offend. The feminist movement arrogated that right to itself many years ago. This thread is a pretty good example of the sort of stuff you're used to being able to get away with, and you're cranky that I dare to do the same.

What you don't seem to grasp is that I actively support equal opportunity for all and I believe that it has been achieved. I don't support further perpetuation of the sort of gravy-train ride that you have come to expect is your "right" as a feminist. Nor do I support your right to constantly belittle and vilify men without challenge.

If you wish to do battle with the "evil male oppressors", go to where they actually exist in resonable numbers; don't stay here, feminist ticket for the gravy-train clasped firmly in your sweaty hand, telling us how hard-done-by you feel.

David f.

‘I realise that that I have had many regressive attitudes toward women that I have attempted to deal with.’

It cuts both ways. One thing feminism has taught me is to deal with my own regressive attitudes to men. Many of us women still expect men to provide us with ongoing romance, financial security, car maintenance and IT support. And we still have an irritating habit of automatically jumping into the passenger seat. We also cling to the traditional expectation that we are the primary carers of children – a belief that is no longer practical when almost one in two marriages now end in divorce.

Anyway. Thanks for your kind words.

Antiseptic

‘I don't support further perpetuation of the sort of gravy-train ride that you have come to expect is your "right" as a feminist. Nor do I support your right to constantly belittle and vilify men without challenge.’

As I said in my previous post … as a feminist, I have to choose my battles. Because such negative generalisations about feminism are impossible to either prove or disprove, this is a battle not worth fighting.

Antiseptic:
"You responded to a perception of the tone of part of what I was saying, rather than the content of the post. Do you disagree with the 200 words or so that preceded my "Pomeranian" jest? If so, why? If not, how is my credibility reduced?"

No, I did not disagree with your first paragraph; in fact I found it most interesting.
However, paragraph 3:
"bingo. The trouble for those of a "delicate" disposition is that they tend to find all sorts of things offensive that are not, to the objective observer."
I contend your comments about Pomeranians were deliberately meant to offend.
I don't know about you, but I am generally drawn back to these discussions by email alerts. When I get an alert to a post from Oliver, Waterboy, Davidf, Frac.. SJF, Rhelda, Daveiy and a host of others, I am keen to see their latest contribution.
Others, however, like Runner or Sells, I generally don't make a special trip for. These people don't offer opinions, they offer FACTS.
Nor do they show any interest in opposing opinions.
There are others I don't bother to read, simply because it is too hard to decipher (under one god) or just aren't pleasant.
I found your recent posts unpleasant.

grim:"I found it most interesting"

So why didn't you respond to it?

grim:"I contend your comments about Pomeranians were deliberately meant to offend."

They were originally intended s a jocular commentary on the way in which the person referred to tends to join in to conversations between others with silly little one-liners that remind me of the yapping of a Pomeranian s it runs around looking for a leg to hump. How he perceives them is his problem. He may well share your view, to which I say "pfft".

grim:"I found your recent posts unpleasant."

What was it you found unpleasant, and why?

Antiseptic:

If there is nothing malicious in your posts why do you feel the need to defend yourself? If they are just ‘jocular comments’ then they should just stand on their merits. If a reader interprets them as anything else then surely it is they who have the problem and the forum is not the place for you to be helping them with their personal problems.

Why do you need to comment on the style of other posters rather than their content? None of us has perfect expression but we do not come here for English lessons. The only other reason would be to try and hurt them by belittling them.

You say that you cannot harm people on the forum even if you wanted to. It is true there are no words that can hurt us and if they do it is our problem but we all have problems and to take advantage of that is the tactic of an aggressive person. If you verbally attack someone that is obese you will probably hurt them since obesity is actually a problem for them. In fact there is no reason to criticise their weight unless it is to hurt them. You may not see the personal problems of other posters or maybe you can but if you fire enough arrows the chances are that some of them will hurt.

Then again if your arrows are, as you say, actually jokes then you will not need to respond to this post.

Antiseptic, I really don't know if I can make my point more clearly. I did not bother to respond to the first part of your post, because I found the second part unpleasant.
I am more than happy to trade opinions with anyone, on the basis of mutual respect. This is probably the most aggravating thing about fundamentalist theists; they are convinced they KNOW the truth, and the rest of us are simply wrong.
Correct that: it is not just theists, but all fundamentalists (if that is a word). I have had stoushes in these forums with fundamentalist Capitalists, fundy socialists fundy AGW denialists and fundy greens. On several occasions I learnt from these people, and modified my own views to some degree.
When it comes to trading insults, however, I believe I mastered that art in primary school. It no longer holds any interest for me, as a debating tactic.
As to your 'Pomeranian' remarks being meant as humour, may I suggest one of the 'fundamental' rules of jesting: don't try and use the same punchline more than once.
It gets old, really quickly.

Phanto, the pomeranian gag is from another thread, which you and grim may not have seen; that is why I explained it. In the face of a stream of silly, personally-directed one-liners from CJ Morgan, I had two options - either complain to GY, or deal with it appropriately. I could have been humourless, with a post such as the one I'm responding to, or I could use a little humour. I chose the latter and it seems to have struck a chord, albeit not necessarily the one I was aiming for. That's the thing with free speech - people are free to interpret one's meaning as well.

As for "style", a few here have taken it upon themselves to critique my own, in the absence of any apparent capacity to critique the content. I don't think I'll be modifying much in response.

phanto:"you will not need to respond to this post."

Oh dear, the old "when did you stop beating your wife?" gag in a new guise.

grim:"one of the 'fundamental' rules of jesting: don't try and use the same punchline more than once. "

May I suggest that you're quite wrong. A standard part of humour is the "running gag", in which the same them is reiterated ad nauseum. In addition, a standard tactic for dealing with hecklers is to categorise them as something risible and then flog the gag mercilesly. It is effective, because the heckler is usually unable to think up more than one or two ripostes before he runs out of steam, just as happened with CJMorgan.

Personally, I like a bit of argy-bargy. If someone has a go at me, I reserve the right to do the same back. I don't, however, intentionally start the ball rolling, as there seem to be plenty willing to take my clear and rational utterances in their own peculiar way and get hot under the collar.

I think it's fascinating that you have still not responded in any way to something you found "most interesting", while you've commented extensively on what is essentially a trivial irrelevancy. Why?

Antiseptic

To complement grim's and phanto's comments.

The problem I have with your style of commenting is not so much the abuse or jocular heckling, or the fact that you mostly disagree with me. I enjoy parrying with people whose views are diametrically opposed to mine, and sometimes abusive heckling can be quite entertaining.

What is most frustrating is that your commentary style has a knack of throwing the actual discussion off the rails. It stops being a discussion about Topic X or Y and, instead, becomes a discussion about you.

If you don't believe me, look back at the last 10 or so comments on this particular thread, and others you've participated in. You're certainly not alone in doing this on OLO (and I won't name names), but you are definitely one of the worst offenders.

"A standard part of humour is the "running gag", in which the same them is reiterated ad nauseum."
Ad nauseam. 'To the point of nausea. "This topic has been discussed ad nauseam" signifies that the topic in question has been discussed extensively and everyone involved in the discussion is sick and tired of it.' Wikipedia.
I fully agree with this point, Antiseptic.
As to not commenting on a post which I found interesting; I feel no compulsion to comment on every post, or every article. The articles and posts I find most interesting are those I know little or nothing about, -which makes it difficult, if not unethical, to comment.
In this specific case (which I feel we have discussed, 'ad nauseum') I would not respond simply on principle, even if I had something to add, which I don't, as I am not particularly knowledgeable on that particular period, which is why I found it interesting.
Thankyou for an intelligent (and mannerly) reply.

Antiseptic:

You say others have criticized your style. Why do you feel the need to respond in kind? Just because they behave contrary to the aims of the forum does not mean you need to stoop to their level. Style is irrelevant.

“Oh dear, the old "when did you stop beating your wife?" gag in a new guise.”
Why the exasperated, impatient and patronizing response? It takes the same effort to respond in a respectful way or are you trying to convince yourself that you are so much cleverer than some of the other posters that you have to suffer?

“Personally, I like a bit of argy-bargy. If someone has a go at me, I reserve the right to do the same back.”
Why exactly do you like ‘argy-bargy’? What personal satisfaction do you get from it? Do you have to find that personal satisfaction here? I think there are many people who would like to express their opinions on this forum but are afraid to because they are sensitive to ‘argy-bargy’. That may be their problem but it could well mean the forum is a lot poorer for that. Many young people may feel like they can challenge the opinions of some posters including yourself but we never hear from them because of the climate of fear that people like you create. They may be your equal or better when it comes to debating but not when it comes to ‘argy-bargy’. Creating a climate of fear is one way of drowning out opinions that we do not feel confident in defending.

I think the ultimate purpose of these forums is to share and debate opinions in order to help solve social problems. If that is our real aim then we should do what we can to accommodate as many views as possible. If that means leaving our need for ‘argy-bargy’ at the door well it should be a small price to pay for the end result. If, however, our real need is for ‘argy-bargy’ we will not find such a sacrifice very palatable

Antiseptic: << It is effective, because the heckler is usually unable to think up more than one or two ripostes before he runs out of steam, just as happened with CJMorgan. >>

Er no, old chap. I've actually been having a lovely time away from the computer with my kids - before which, I thought I'd spent more than enought time on your crap.

Speaking of which:

<< ...a stream of silly, personally-directed one-liners from CJ Morgan, I had two options - either complain to GY, or deal with it appropriately. >>

In other words, you're enfuriated at my penchant for arguing against your increasingly misogynist claptrap. Not to mention more Freudian projection - certainly in terms of "silly, personally-directed one-liners", for examples of which any OLO reader can refer to your extensive history of abuse of not only me, but those (mostly female) intrepid souls who repel it admirably.

How's your love life?

SJF:"your commentary style has a knack of throwing the actual discussion off the rails. It stops being a discussion about Topic X or Y and, instead, becomes a discussion about you."

Not at my instigation. I'd like nothing better than a decent discussion, but it seems impossible to get people to respond to questions with answers. You are a classic example of someone who likes to blow into a discussion, drop a smelly conversational fart and then blow out again as soon as it is noticed, all the while proclaiming that you really would like to stay, but the smell is too bad.

Conversation implies dialogue, which implies communication and a willingness to engage. If I ask 10 questions in a post, not a one will be responded to, yet a single piece of florid language is enough to get pages of whinge. Who, then, is failing the communication test?

Grim, a lack of historical knowledge shouldn't keep you from engaging with the ideas. The idea I was trying to get across is that free access to information is the best way to ensure free ideas. The example I gave was only relevant because the article's author used the treatment of Jews in pre-war and wartime Germany to try to justify Israel's appalling record on free speech and human rights. The hypocrisy was just a bit too much to stand.

"The problem with limiting people to inoffensive speech is that powerful organised groups, such as the pro-Zionists, can swamp any attempt to discuss matters of broad interest with claims of offence taken."
Antiseptic, your point is a good one.
My point (belaboured 'ad nauseam') is that, rather than reinforcing an argument, bad manners detracts -and distracts- from an argument; as SJF and others noted.
Currently, the law (I believe) is clear. There is nothing anyone can say to me, no verbal abuse, which gives me the right to actually hit anyone.
In short, verbal abuse can never justify physical abuse.
And this brings us (or me, at least) back the theist/atheist argument.
It seems most people can take abuse directed at themselves; it's when the abuse is directed at their God, they get seriously cranky

phanto:"Style is irrelevant."

In that case, why are we having a discussion about MY style?

phnto:"young people may feel like they can challenge the opinions of some posters including yourself but we never hear from them because of the climate of fear that people like you create."

Fear? How so? As you will see if you go back over my posting history, you will see that I have rarely been anything other than correct and "mannerly" to people who are polite. On the rare occasion I have done otherwise (sry Romany, Foxy) I have apologised when it was pointed out.

If a young person is not expressing himself well, then I will more than likely ignore his comments, unless they are offensive to me. Even then, I am likely to do no more than say "Poppycock" or some such expletive directed at the views rather than being personally insulting. I reserve that for those who choose to be personally insulting first. If he finds my views offensive, he is also more than welcome to tell me why.

phanto:"Creating a climate of fear is one way of drowning out opinions that we do not feel confident in defending."

Precisely the point I made in my first post. Why should I be afraid to speak up boldly for fear of having my message drowned out by a wave of irrelevant whinging about one or two words? Why should I avoid being contentious simply because someone else is less able to contend?

I ask questions in every post I make, so I'm hardly trying to stiffle discussion, yet rarely do I get a response.

grim:"bad manners detracts -and distracts- from an argument; as SJF and others noted."

I will certainly concede that it distracts - this thread is a clear example. I don't agree that it detracts unless it is also witless and pointless, like the leg-humping reflex of a neutered dog.

grim:"when the abuse is directed at their God, they get seriously cranky"

Yep and in a nutshell that's why I get up the noses of the would-be radfems and their lapdogs.

Antiseptic referred to "Israel's appalling record on free speech and human rights."

According to Reporters without Borders:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_Press_Freedom_Index#Worldwide_Press_Freedom_Index_Ranking

Of 173 countries Israel ranks 46 in press freedom.

"Freedom in the World" published by Freedom House ranks countries by political rights and civil liberties that are derived in large measure from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Countries are assessed as free, partly free, or unfree. Israel is assessed as free.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_indices_of_freedom discusses the state of freedom of various countries. Listed as a flawed democracy Israel has a better than average record compared to other countries of the world.

Well done, Antiseptic

All the posts since my last one have all been about you.

'If I ask 10 questions in a post, not a one will be responded to...'

You just don't get it, do you?

This may come as a surprise to you, but asking 10 questions (or 3 or 5 or 7) in a post is itself a method of bullying. It’s a classic de-railer, because it takes the emphasis off the topic and onto the personal needs of the person doing the questioning.

This is not to be confused with the occasional reasonable request for clarification or a citation, for which most people are happy to oblige. However, this is a far cry from barking orders at people to respond to a set of questions, and then badgering them further when they don’t choose to do so or object to your tone of questioning.

(Oh … and don’t even think of wasting my time, or your own, with the tired old bully’s lament that if people don’t respond to your questions, it’s because they don’t have any answers.)

‘Yep and in a nutshell that's why I get up the noses of the would-be radfems and their lapdogs.’

Your bragging is misplaced. All the attention-seeking misogyny you dump on every gender thread gets up a lot of people’s noses – not just the radfem ones.

SJF wrote:

"Well done, Antiseptic

All the posts since my last one have all been about you."

Dear SJF,

That is a bit unfair. I wrote one of those posts, and it was not about Antiseptic. It concerned a substantive remark he made. I did not comment on his style, his manner of presentation or his person.

Since we are a discussion group that is in order.

Antiseptic said - In that case, why are we having a discussion about MY style?

We are not having a discussion about your style we are having a discussion about your aggression. There is never any reason to be aggressive and it certainly has nothing to do with style. It is all about the need to hurt people. Sarcasm, belittling, put downs, exasperation, impatience, patronizing are all acts of aggression and most of your posts contain acts of aggression.

This is not about your opinions it is about your behaviour. It is not about free speech it is about the deliberate attempt to use speech to hurt others. Of course you are free to try and hurt others and to drag down the integrity of the forums if you wish but there should be consequences of that. People should refuse to interact with you at all until you stop using the forums to compensate for your own personal problems. That is the only way to deal with people like you.

The fact that people do not respond to your questions or your opinions should not be taken as a sign that they cannot ‘contend’ with your questions or opinions. It is quite likely they do not respond because they are afraid of you. That is the trouble when you are aggressive you never know if people like you and respect you or they are just afraid of you.

Well said, phanto. However, I suspect that you'll now be transformed into some kind of neurotic dog in Antiseptic's discourse, undoubtedly passed off as 'humour'. Is there anybody here who finds Antiseptic's attempts at bullying the slightest bit funny, except for him?

As a regular object of his aggression, I have to say however that it is somewhat less than frightening. Rather, I feel some compassion for the poor bugger since he's so obviously miserable and angry. I can imagine from his self-descriptions that he might be intimidating IRL to women in particular, but most blokes I know would regard him as one does those sad losers who cry into their beer at the pub on occasions.

I've noticed that his antipathy towards women and those who like them has intensified lately. He used to bluster on about 'feminism', but lately this seems to be becoming more generalised towards all women. His language is also becoming steadily more abusive.

We've seen this pattern before at OLO. I don't expect that we'll have to put up with the continual, repetitive and deliberate attempts to offend others for all that long.

CJ:

I just stopped by for a read but couldn't resist letting you know that this gave me a good laugh. Very clever.

Grim: << While I hold (ad nauseum) to the ethic of reciprocity, if everyone is always unfailingly polite it just makes it that much more difficult to identify the assholes. >>

Indeed, and Antiseptic is unfailingly obliging in helping us to identify at least one of them.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 10 April 2009 1:19:01 PM

davidf, "not as bad as the very worst", is not equivalent to "not appalling".

SJF:"All the posts since my last one have all been about you. "

And that is my fault how? I've asked several questions that could have taken the discussion off into a different direction, but neither you nor anyone else has chosen to take them up. Why am I responsible for your and others' obsession with me? Get over me.

SJF:"asking 10 questions (or 3 or 5 or 7) in a post is itself a method of bullying"

Hahaha. What we should all do is simply say "yes SJF, you're so wise, tell us more". I should have realised, how stupid of me.
LMAO, that was the funniest post I think I've ever seen.

SJF:"if people don’t respond to your questions, it’s because they don’t have any answers"

I ask questions because they occur to me whilst thinking about and responding to the posts. I ask them in an effort to give people something to think about in turn. I'm sorry you don't like to think about things.

SJF:"All the attention-seeking misogyny you dump on every gender thread gets up a lot of people’s noses – not just the radfem ones."

There's no misogyny, SJF, despite your and your lapdog's efforts to portray it that way. What there is is a deep conviction that feminism is a once-necessary philosophy that has turned into a pernicious, self-serving ideology being milked by a relatively few women (and some talentless men) for a free ride.

If you lot weren't so keen to brand people misogynist for disagreeing with you, you'd get a lot more respect. The reason that few men bother trying to engage with you and the other would-be radfems here is that you don't engage, you simply play the "offence" card to try to shut down the discussion as soon as it gets too hard for you.

Pynchme:"Good little fella, CJ"

Awww. Warms the cockles of your heart, it does. Go on, give him a bikkie, you know you want to.

A-septic

Maybe you are intimidating IRL as you claim, maybe not. However, you do not intimidate anyone on these pages. Because of your denigrating style and because I am free to choose to whom and to what POV I respond, you simply do not rate. Maybe you have something interesting to say, I don't know because I just skim your posts, if there is an insult, I don't bother with you.

I'm making an exception this time, as for your point that "a deep conviction that feminism is a once-necessary philosophy that has turned into a pernicious, self-serving ideology being milked by a relatively few women (and some talentless men) for a free ride."

That is your opinion. There is no evidence for it, you only respond with denigrating statements like this because others have simply disagreed with you. That you can't handle it is your problem. Such is the power of hatred.

Antoseptic "not as bad as the very worst", is not equivalent to "not appalling".

I know it isn't, but considerably better than average is equivalent to not appalling.

phanto:"we are having a discussion about
your aggression"
You might be, I'm having a conversation
about freedom of speech.
phanto:"There is never any reason to be
aggressive "
I say that I'm not aggressive, I'm
assertive. How you perceive that
assertiveness is entirely your own affair.
phanto:"People should refuse to interact
with you at all until you stop using the
forums to compensate for your own personal
problems. That is the only way to deal with
people like you."
LMAO, passive-aggressive much?

phanto:"It is quite likely they do not
respond because they are afraid of you"
Or because they lack confidence in their
own position or in their capacity to build
a sound argument. Either way, it's their
problem to deal with, not mine.

Fractelle:"That is your opinion. There is no evidence for it,"

Yes, it is my opinion, and I have provided plenty of evidence in the past. You'd not have seen it, because you were too busy trying to find irrelevancies to respond to, or avoid the pomeranian trying to sniff at your crotch.

davidf:"considerably better than average is equivalent to not appalling."

That depends on what the average is. I suggest that on the basis of the number of people affected, the average is considerably worse than appalling.

It should also be mentioned that the basis for the comparison is the report of US right-wing organisations. the US has consistently refused to do anything about Israeli bad behaviour and the US right-wing is dominated by pro-Zionists.

Antiseptic: "What there is is a deep conviction that feminism is a once-necessary philosophy..."

Why do you hold the conviction that feminism was necessary?

Please detail why, in your opinion, it was necessary.

Antiseptic

'SJF:"asking 10 questions (or 3 or 5 or 7) in a post is itself a method of bullying"

Hahaha... LMAO, that was the funniest post I think I've ever seen.'

I stand by what I said. Barking questions at people to explain what they meant by this and explain what they meant by that and demanding from people to provide examples of what they mean etc etc ... is actually a classic bullying method - often used by abusive parents, teachers and bosses.

Used politely and in moderation, putting questions to people is fine. However, when it's used repeatedly, rudely and excessively, as you do, it crosses over into baiting and harrassment - two of the main pillars of hate speech.

David f

'That is a bit unfair. I wrote one of those posts, and it was not about Antiseptic. It concerned a substantive remark he made. I did not comment on his style, his manner of presentation or his person.'

That's a fair objection and I was aware when I wrote my last post that yours was different from the others. If you felt misrepresented, I apologise.

However, I was referring to the fact that the cumulative effect of all those posts (including yours) put Antiseptic at the centre of the commentary's attention - which is where he ALWAYS sets out to place himself, regardless of the topic. And in doing so, he usually ends up derailing it.

I think Antiseptic can only derail topics if we interact with him. If he did not get a 'rise' out of people he would soon get bored and go somewhere else to get the effect he wants.

It is up to the rest of us to control the behaviour on these forums. If we find behaviour unacceptable then we should ignore the person and refuse to interact with them on any level. If they are here just to express their opinions then it should not bother them if no one responds to anything they say. If they are here to intimidate and bully then they will get frustrated and go away. Whatever fantasies they have in their own mind about their own power is their concern.

pynchme:"Why do you hold the conviction that feminism was necessary?"

Once, women were limited in their work and some other choices by the social structure. It was necessary because some women were being disadvantaged as a result. That no longer applies. Whilst constraints still exist, they are now pretty much exclusively the products of biology rather than social strusture, in Western countries at least.

SJF:"Barking questions at people to explain what they meant by this and explain what they meant by that and demanding from people to provide examples of what they mean etc etc ... is actually a classic bullying method - often used by abusive parents, teachers and bosses"

Oh, nice: any question is an attempt to intimidate and the questioner is also automatically abusive. Even better than the last effort, Fraulein Goebbels; well done. My 12 year old daughter is able to respond rationally to my questions, as is my 11 year old son. They sometimes even ask provoking questions in return...

phanto's right, you know? Since I can't abide stupidity and vapidity, the best thing for those so-afflicted is to shut up if they don't want me to respond. The conversation would be boring and the chance of anybody learning anything would be reduced, but at least noone would be offended, eh?

Get over your obsession with all things Antiseptic, girls and boys. YKIMS.

phanto:"If we find behaviour unacceptable then we should ignore the person and refuse to interact with them on any level."

Perhaps borderline personality is a better diagnosis. Of course, that often evinces as passive-aggression...

Wise words again, phanto. Thanks, I think I'll take your advice - and thanks to Pynchme, SJF and others who've made intelligent and civil comments.

Ciao.

Hiya CJ - I agree with you all and I appreciate the courage it takes for men like you to speak up for what's just and reasonable. However what we've been witnessing is the manner in which bullies silence other men and most women. So for a while at least, when I get a chance to post at all, I aim to use bully posts to set out additional information. Maybe something will eventually strike a chord of natural human feeling. I choose not to be silenced at this time.

Antiseptic: <"Once, women were limited in their work and some other choices by the social structure. It was necessary because some women were being disadvantaged as a result. That no longer applies. Whilst constraints still exist, they are now pretty much exclusively the products of biology rather than social strusture, in Western countries at least.">

- and yet, every day the news is replete with stories (hardly exhaustive) of women and chidren being tortured and killed by men. Do you think that is indicative that something continues to be wrong in the social structure ?

- and yet, every day the news is replete with stories (hardly exhaustive) of women neglecting, molesting and killing children.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25341199-5017817,00.html

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25345825-1248,00.html

If you insist on making men collectively responsible for the sins of the few, it is only fair to do the same to women.

It would never occur to you to use 'some', because you are out to abuse men - that is prejudice. SOME men are violent towards women and children and usually to other men as well. Likewise SOME women neglect, molest and kill children and adults (even old ones) as well.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25345796-29277,00.html

“Prejudice squints when it looks, and lies when it talks”
Duchess de Abrantes

Most,in fact the substantial majority of men and women are fine upstanding people who wish only the best for others. So what about coming clean and using the qualifier 'some' rather than cast hurtful aspersions against one gender? Not so hard to do is it?

Well, I stayed away for a full day to give all those scintillant conversationalists time to be brilliant about the topic and look - not a word. You poor things are all bereft when you don't have Antiseptic to whinge about, aren't you? What empty lives you must lead.

pynchme:"Do you think that is indicative that something continues to be wrong in the social structure ?"

No. I think it's indicative that people under stress behave badly and that if someone is going to be violent toward others, they'll choose those smaller or weaker than they are. Thus some men bash their wives, some women bash their kids, some big kids bash smaller kids and so on. In each case, the one who uses physical violence is vilified and yet there is never any sense at all that the "victim" may have been actively involved in escalating a situation to the point that physical force is used.

Don't try to claim I'm condoning violence, because I'm not, I'm simply being realistic about it. Let's face it, noone in the history of the world has managed to come up with any way of eliminating it even in a small area and there have been some pretty strong attempts.

The sensible thing is to educate people in ways to avert escalation to that point, not vilifiy one form while remaining entirely silent about all others. To do so is to create a hierarchy - in this case a "matriarchy", which may make your ovaries ache with joy, but will only replace one form of violence with another.

I find it fascinating that there is an acceptance of violence by the state, with very strong violence being seen as acceptable if the organs of the state are the perpetrators and they assault one of the approved classes of victim, such as men, especially young, aboriginal or Moslem ones, but never if they assault women [violence against women is never acceptable Kevin Rudd]. The mental gymnastics needed to encompass that world view must be very tiring.

Certainly we need some sort of adjudication in exercises like the above.

Makes one wonder if any of us will ever be able to admit what is right or wrong, especially when one is fighting for a cause, as most of us are?

Certainly if we try to stick to a democratic academia, it seems we either share the blame or finish up like the early Roman Empire, which learning from the Greek philosophers, even developed a Senate, though it was to contain mostly the aged, kind of tribal, where the oldies were the most experienced.

But somewhat like now, all the young were looking forwards not backwards which with Rome brought out the Caesars, abilities with the sword and lance as well as with throaty articulation.

And so interestingly, both the Aged Senators and the Caesars
as with religion brought out the Thou Shalts, while with the Sermon on the Mount, the young Jesus threw out the Thou Shalts and replaced them with the Blessed Are, as we would give both love and admiration to the Good Samaritan or the ordinary Aussie might call to a family seemingly broken down on a country road.

Are you people Okay?

Finally finishes with just a thought, that's all, but really like the Good Samaritan, it is all that decent progress is all about.

Cornflower: <" If you insist on making men collectively responsible for the sins of the few...">

Please show where that's been done.

I'm fascinated by the progress of this discussion. I'm beginning to know a little of what it may have felt like to be a Jew in Nazi Germany, when the "tyranny of the majority" reached its zenith.

Congratulations, grrls, you've done Herr (and Fraulein SJF) Goebbels proud. I believe he was quite fond of Pomeranians, too.

Antiseptic: <"pynchme:"Do you think that is indicative that something continues to be wrong in the social structure ?"

No. I think it's indicative that people under stress behave badly and that if someone is going to be violent toward others, they'll choose those smaller or weaker than they are. Thus some men bash their wives, some women bash their kids, some big kids bash smaller kids and so on.">

This (linked story) is a current example of what I mean. Two girls have expulsion on their school records and a concerned teacher was sacked for trying to protect the students. Doesn't it seem to you that there is a systemic problem when neither the assistant principal who helped facilitate those injustices, nor the school board, nor even the ombudsman and departmental others, are called to account for punishing people who did no wrong but to raise the alarm?

http://www.smh.com.au/national/brave-girls-pay-high-price-for-exposing-evil-20090418-aarx.html?page=1

What do you think is at the core of their failure to act to protect students ?

Pynchme, this was not "structural" it was a poor decision on the part of one particular individual - the deputy head who was first told. He was obviously comfortable with the Principal and decided that there was nothing to investigate. People make these sorts of decisions all the time, especially in schools, were the pupils are not averse to trying to "make trouble" for teachers they don't like, including making up stories. I doubt that atory you quoted is the whole of it, because in my experience students are not expelled for a first offence. I suspect that these girls had a history of discipline problems and the science teacher only spoke up after she was made redundant, which would lead easily to a conclusion that she was acting out of sour grapes.

If the deputy was aware of all of that (and it seems he was), what is wrong with his decision to weight the allegation accordingly? Given, also that the subject of the allegation did the expelling (apparently properly in terms of the available evidence) as part of his job role, who should have stopped it? How?

It seems that your position is similar to ninaf's: if an allegation of anything improper sexually is made, it must be assumed to be true until investigated and even then, if no evidence is found, it must be treated as though it COULD be true. If we followed that rule on every aspect of the law we'd have 2 million police and the rest of the population lawyers.

Let me ask you what you think was the essense of this principal's crime? Was it the sexual activity, or was it the breach of his position of trust? Why?

Antiseptic,

You didn't even read that article.

You have been quite happy to tar the characters of those students and of the teacher who was sacked two weeks after raising her concerns - as she is required to do by law, as well as by the ethics of her profession.

In fact she raised her concerns the year before he was charged, and after he had drugged and raped another teenaged student.

The Assistant Principal not only broke certain laws, failed in his ethical duty and was negligent, but he was basically complicit in making it possible for the offender to continue preying on the students. Has that fellow lost his job or been called in to explain? What of the school board, which was also made aware of concerns?

Why, when the allegations were first made, wasn't there an investigation to either clear the Principal's name, or protect the students?

Why have these two students not been reinstated, or at least had their rdecords cleared - and why has the teacher who first raised concerns been reinstated.

Your sort of answer again points out how rape continues as a symptom of a systemic imbalance of power and control. People like you make it possible, and even easy, for people like him to continue.

I wonder how you'd feel if one of those children were yours.

pynchme, the process is continuing and no doubt the students will get "justice", whatever that may mean to them.

I stand by my comment that this is no example of structural problems, but is a combination of individual judgement calls. If you legislate to remove individual judgements, you have totalitarianism. Is that your preferred option? It's not mine.

pynchme:"I wonder how you'd feel if one of those children were yours."

I'd be shocked and angry. So what? I'm shocked and angry that it happened to someone else, but unlike you, I am able to control my emotional response and think rationally about the subject.

No, you don't think rationally. You leapt immediately to slandering the reputation of those girls and the female teacher who raised concerns; now you bury yourself in convenient denial.

Your rape mentality is far too comfortable for you; so much so that you're now incapable of reviewing the situation; the social connections and justice issues perpetuated within them. If it had been your daughter or son; would you just shrug off the neglect of the Vice Principal AND the Board - shrug and say, "Oh well at least I'm rational."

What's rational about standing mute while people who are in positions of trust to care for young people not only fail in that duty, but actively contribute to a predator's brazen exploitation of them.

Pynchme:"You leapt immediately to slandering the reputation of those girls"

Ah, I've worked it out! English isn't your first language, is it?

Let's go back, shall we? Here's what i said:"pupils are not averse to trying to "make trouble" for teachers they don't like, including making up stories. I doubt that atory you quoted is the whole of it, because in my experience students are not expelled for a first offence. I suspect that these girls had a history of discipline problems and the science teacher only spoke up after she was made redundant, which would lead easily to a conclusion that she was acting out of sour grapes."

You'll note that I provided a counter-explanation to your own hysterical one and that you have not provided any information to counter my explanation. Your own preferred explanation is that there is a systemic problem. You've not provided any evidence to support that, either. In fact, you never provide either evidence or a rational justification for your claims, merely bald assertions and naysaying. You will never respond to a question, while I respond to many of yours. Frankly, lovey, you're not much good at this, are you? No wonder you're after a free ride - pedalling your own bike is just too much for you, isn't it? Totalitarianism would suit you down to the ground, since there's no thinking required.

Now, off you toddle and see if you can't get someone to explain to you what I just wrote.

Antiseptic: <"Your own preferred explanation is that there is a systemic problem. You've not provided any evidence to support that, either. In fact, you never provide either evidence or a rational justification for your claims, merely bald assertions and naysaying.">

Evidence: The attached story.

The Assistant Principal failed to investigate a formal report by a profesional associate that students were in danger.

The Assistant Principal breached government policy and departmental procedure by informing the Principal (who was later convicted of about 5 occasions of sexual assault of minors) of the complaint.

The Assistant Principal AND the School Board, raised no objections when the Principal sacked the teacher who raised the alert.

The Ombudsmen and other departments who are mandated to investigate when youngsters are at risk, were notified but did not act on the information.

After concerns were raised, the Principal drugged and sexually assaulted another pupil.

Despite the notifications, expulsions and the sacking, the Principal was provided with a substantial reference that enabled him to take up employment at another school.

The girls have not had their cases investigated. Even IF they had been problematic students, it still stands that they were expelled directly after accusing the Principal of inappropriate behaviour and no information was given to their parents. It has eventuated that their accusations were well founded. Those accusations have nothing to do with their behaviour - but everything to do with HIS, since he is the offender.

The female teacher who was sacked two weeks after lodging her concerns with the Assistant Principal (as she is required to do), has not been reinstated or had her case investigated.

Do you have any evidence at all to refute any of the above points ?

Do you have any counter article ?

My remarks are based in something verifiable. Your remarks are based in your own prejudices which are cleary pro-rape and against women, in accordance with prevailing social institutions.

None of the systems worked to even investigate the claims; but all worked to benefit the offender. We therefore have a systemic problem.

Pynchme, the individuals failed. Every system like this relies on individual judgements and sometimes the people involved make mistakes.

Instead of ranting, what do you suggest should be done to fix that?

If you mandate responses to every possible situation you create totalitarianism and robots and if you give open slather, you risk some negative outcomes in other ways. It all comes down to whether you think that the game is worth the candle.

How rigid must our society become to satisfy your paranoid need for an absolute security guarantee? Let me remind you, without minimising the experience of the victims, that there were approximately 900,000 other students that year who didn't experience sexual predation by their Principal. In analysing risk there are two different aspects to consider - first, the hazard, which means the potential outcome. For example, a saw bench presents grave hazards, ranging from death through impalement through amputation to sinus trouble through breathing the dust; a pencil also presents several grave hazards, ranging from loss of sight in an eye to splinters. Should we then treat these as equally dangerous implements and their use as requisite of similar levels of preventative safety measures?

The answer, of course, is no, because the risk of those hazards occurring in normal use is quite different. If a pencil is used normally, there is almost no risk, whereas even with the best training and immaculate work practises, a saw bench still presents a high risk of injury.

Sociopaths arise from time to time and they are often very good at camouflaging their activities. They may present a hazard that is grave, but the risk of encountering such a person is low.

How much risk is too much? What is the social hazard presented by a totalitarian model?

Dear Antiseptic,

You are quite the drama queen.

It's only appropriate to refer to someone as paranoid when their fears and hypervigilance are unfounded.

It would be more fitting for you to carry that sort of label; since you are so fearful that there is a feminist conspiracy (unfounded) that might rob you of some perceived 'entitlement' that you are quite at ease with the idea that rape and abuse should continue unchallenged.

There is no need for a totalitarian state. The laws and protocols to guide people in their professional behaviour already exist; all that is required is that people do their jobs and do them in an ethical manner, and that we EXPECT them to do so. Attitudes such as yours are what make it possible for abuses to continue.... and it isn't a miniscule number of children that suffer.

"..between 12.6% and 35.5% of women; and between 5.3% and 15.4% of men reported experiences when aged 16 or older which meet the legal definition of rape... "

http://www.yarrowplace.sa.gov.au/booklet_statistics.html

<"The highest rate of sexual assault was recorded for females 10-14 years of age at 544 per 100,000 females in that age group.
For males, rates were also highest for those aged 10-14 (95 per 100,000 relevant persons) and less than 10 (78 per 100,000 relevant persons).
Boys made up 32% of sexual assault victims aged less than 10 years. ">

http://www.aic.gov.au/topics/violence/sexual_assault/stats/victims.html

Do you understand that about 1 in 100 people experience a psychotic illness (like schizophrenia) at some time in their life. Do you realize that just for the age group of children 10-14 alone, the number of children victimized approximates 1/2 the total of people who experience schizophrenia - surely you wouldn't suggest that go untreated. .... but tonight, hundreds of children will be going to bed fearful of what the night might bring in terms of some creep's predilection for children.

As a community we can do better to protect youngsters. Getting rid of rape supportive attitudes that favour perpetrators and punish their targets is one way to help.

Pynchme:"The laws and protocols to guide people in their professional behaviour already exist; all that is required is that people do their jobs and do them in an ethical manner, and that we EXPECT them to do so."

You can't have it both ways. Either there's a systemic problem or there isn't. In only your last post you argued there is, now it seems some of the reflected light of pure reason in illuminating your thoughts. I knew you weren't entirely stupid.

BTW, if people like you weren't so keen to see abuse in every corner, your arguments would have more credibility. As it stands, all you do is show time and again that your view is at odds with reality.

BTW, what does schizophrenia have to do with the Principal drugging and raping a student? Are you suggesting he was schizophrenic?

Now off you go and make sure the doors and windows are all locked. You can't be too careful...

Antiseptic: I apologize for assuming that you would know what is meant by the term "systemic problem". Systems theory, especially in sociology and psychology, refers to the total of interacting forces - formal (like structures, organizations or groups big or small; procedures and laws) as well as cultural (like beliefs, knowledge and attitudes) and behaviour of all the individuals within the system (whether the system is a family or a workplace or a whole society).

System theory holds that change in one aspect of the system impacts on all the other parts of the system; changing to some degree the patterns of functioning. Therefore, individual beliefs, attitudes and actions, contribute to the system functioning and individual attitudes and behaviours matter in the bigger picture.

When something unwanted happens repeatedly (like the Principal assaulting students) and nothing changes to prevent a reocurrance; we have a systemic problem. In this case I am arguing that the behaviours of others enable/d the unwanted event to repeat; and nothing yet has been done to prevent further enabling. If anything, the only one who tried to do the right thing (for the greater good, if I may put it that way) has been punished; probably deterring others from working to make sure that the system works in the way most beneficial to youth and their safety.

Antiseptic:

The reference to schizophrenia was to help you grasp the point that sexual assault, especially of children, is not a rare occurrence.

Just in the age group of 10-14 boys and girls alone, the number of children victimized approximates 1/2 the total of people who experience schizophrenia. We allocate quite a lot of resources to mental health care (as we need to and should) yet we're still in the dark ages with people like yourself insisting that sexual assault is a rare event.

<"The highest rate of sexual assault was recorded for females 10-14 years of age at 544 per 100,000 females in that age group.
For males, rates were also highest for those aged 10-14 (95 per 100,000 relevant persons) and less than 10 (78 per 100,000 relevant persons).
Boys made up 32% of sexual assault victims aged less than 10 years. ">

http://www.aic.gov.au/topics/violence/sexual_assault/stats/victims.html

pynchme:"something unwanted happens repeatedly (like the Principal assaulting students) and nothing changes to prevent a reocurrance"

Except something did change - the Principal tried to stretch his good fortune in exploiting the credulity of others and got caught out. The system worked, by your own definition.

pynchme:"In this case I am arguing that the behaviours of others enable/d the unwanted event to repeat; and nothing yet has been done to prevent further enabling."

So, on the one hand you argue it was systemic, while on the other you say it was a concatenation of poor decisions made by others. As I have said several times, the only way to prevent such poor decisions is to remove any form on decision-making power, leaving automatons operating in an authoritarian environment. Is that what you want to see? If not, what should change?

pynchme:"people like yourself insisting that sexual assault is a rare event."

Actually, I said that sexual assault of a student by a Principal was a rare event. In fact, in the year in question, AFAIK there was only one such case in the entire nation. I suspect that if we extended the time-frame to 10 years the statistics wouldn't look any more impressive.

By all means advocate for genuine victims and even self-declared victims of sexual assault if you feel driven that way, but try not to generalise from extremes or focus on the extreme examples. To do so is not merely poor logic, it leads to poor outcomes, including misallocation of resources.

The event of children being molested by teachers is not as rare as one would hope; but there is an additional reason why Departments of Education have specific guidelines about such matters, and that is that most sexual abuse of children is perpetrated by someone close to them - usually a family member or family friend or someone they know and trust (like teacher). If they confide while at school, there are guidelines in place about what the response should be.

The response doesn't include your idea that kids lie anyway and often muck up in school etc. In fact, perpetrators, in the grooming process, often cast children and youth as unreliable witnesses and as troublemakers just so that they have no credibility with anyone they talk to about the abuse. There is research that identifies that pattern.

Just as your first response accorded with that view; the thing that needs to change isn't rules and regulations, but attitudes that help perpetrators to continue their activities.

If a child/youth says that abuse is happening to them or someone else, it should be reported for investigation - usually by a JIRT team. The first step is listening seriously; the second is reporting it and ensuring that the matter is properly investigated.

The system has not worked when the people who sacked the only teacher who acted properly remain in their jobs while she remains unemployed. The system is not working when the students who challenged the Principal about his behaviour remain excluded and cast as problematic.

How do you think that the stream of child abuse; one perpetrator after another, managed to continue for years at St Stanislaus Catholic College at Bathurst between 1960 and 1993. Or there is the Knox school stream of abusers that molested children from the 1960s until 1990 or so: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/29/2556166.htm

Some molesters are known to impose themselves on 100 victims.

The social, cultural and attitudinal conditions that automatically discount claims of abuse and actively enable abuse to occur and continue, is what needs to change. Individual attitudes matter.

pynchme, it's evident that your idea is that there should be no burden of proof and no individual judgements made about veracity before a whole slew of expensive and intrusive procedures swing into action.

We call that authoritarianism and usually, the only ones who are comfortable with that are the ones who think they're not subject to authority. They're nearly always mistaken about that.

pynchme:"automatically discount claims of abuse"

Where is your evidence there was anything "automatic" in the decisions made? I'm sure the DP thought long and hard about it but if, as I suspect, these girls had a history of discipline problems and knowing the propensity for gossip and lying among schoolgirls, he then discounted their testimony accordingly. As I have said repeatedly, we call this a "judgement" and it is one of the marks of adulthood that we make judgements. Sometimes we get it wrong, which can be upsetting or even catastrophic, but if we are given no opportunity to do so, most people are much less happy. There are some, like yourself of course, who want all their thinking done by someone else, but they're a small subset.

Antiseptic: The evidence of "automatic" judgement against the students is right there in your own post. You have NO evidence that the students had a record of troublesome behaviour but you would automatically much rather crucify them and their future, as well as that of the responsible teacher, as well as the few students who were drugged and molested; than even remotely entertain the notion that the DP should have followed the procedures he is well paid to follow. That's his job.

THAT's the problem right there and you are part of it.

pynchme:"You have NO evidence that the students had a record of troublesome behaviour "

Entirely correct; I'm speculating on a possible (probable, I'd say) chain of events, given my knowledge of schoolgirls. I'm also NOT the Deputy Principal of their school, am I? He most assuredly WOULD have such evidence, if it existed.

You really have very little capacity for reasoning, don't you?

- and your evil "speculation" is exactly the cause of ongoing systemic problems.

We are talking about grown men - one who wasn't doing his job; the other molesting students, and their various adult enablers versus a couple of school girls - who proved to be quite correct, yet havehad no redress; no reinstatement.

In any case, regardless of the girls', or any student's, history or behaviour - it's HIS behaviour (or that of any molester) that was/is the issue, not theirs.

It's exactly your pro rape, woman loathing attitude that is the reinforcing factor that makes it possible for these types to succeed in their deeds.

pynchme:"havehad no redress; no reinstatement."

I'm sure they will, however, have the chance to sue through the courts and will no doubt receive State support via legal aid to do so. See, that's the "system" working.

pynchme:"HIS behaviour (or that of any molester) that was/is the issue, not theirs."

When a complaint is made to any authority, that authority evaluates the sourse. That is part of what the authority is paid to do - use judgement to determine if a claim is likely to be baseless. As a parent, I do it daily, sometimes no doubt getting it wrong. Teachers and Principals are asked to do so dozens of times a day and they have a pretty broad database of prior behaviours they can use to assist them.

To use an example from my own parenting, if my son coes to me and complains that his sister is "hogging" the computer, I am always mindful that his preferred activity is playing games on the computer and that his idea of "fair" is for her to get roughly 32 seconds a day. I evaluate the claim before I take action. I might use other things I know, such as how long she's actually been using it and whether they've just had a spat, but if I'm busy, I might just put him off on the balance of probabilities.

Now, I'm not suggesting this is anything like a claim of a sexual assault, but the same process applies for most adults, I suspect. If the girls had a history of troublemaking or malicious gossiping and the Principal had a blemish-free record, I'd no doubt have done similarly.

Reputation matters. Try getting a loan with a history of bad debts.

Give it up, Pynchme.

It is not capitulation to this fellas point of view, it is the recognition of the fact that he pops up on every thread that even dares to suggest that men can be abusers in any way shape or form.

Frankly, he seems to have a set text on subjects like this. Again,.......and again....

At least others who hold some of these views have the intelligence to post on other subjects, but septic is obsessed on one topic only.

Leave him to amuse himself.

Antiseptic: The education department guidelines are clear as a bell - the DP's job is NOT to judge whether a claim is valid or not; but to notify people who have the authority to assess that.

I've already explained that research also shows that perpetrators of sexual assault of children routinely cast their targets and their associates as unreliable and problematic so undermining their credibility.

Experts that know these things are called in to investigate the claim and only the claim. Obviously YOU and like minded people would misjudge the situation, because of preexisting biases and ignorance.

As to the rest of your speculations; they are just that - speculative. Nobody wants to or should have to go through a costly, lengthy court process to regain what has been taken from them.

Ginx - I think you're right. I'll probably let it go soon; too busy to keep pandering to someone who doesn't bother to actually look up any information.

pynch

pynchme:"the DP's job is NOT to judge whether a claim is valid or not; "

Spoken like a good authoritarian, well done you.

What you still fail to grasp is that most people actually PREFER to think for themselves. Just because you like to be told what to do at every turn doesn't mean everyone else is the same. Some people even take pride in their ability to make useful judgements. I'd imagine that the sort of person who'd be interested in becoming a school principal might fall into that category and might even be good at it, unlike yourself.

In this situation, it appears he made a mistake - I'm sure you've never done so, but then, that's the advantage of not making any of your own decisions, isn't it?

pynchme:"Nobody wants to or should have to go through a costly, lengthy court process to regain what has been taken from them."

Oh, I agree. Ask the Child support Agency about what happens when they taken money from people they have no right to take. They'll tell you that the person is welcome to take them to Court. I'm glad you agree with me that that's not right at all.

pynchme:"As to the rest of your speculations; they are just that - speculative

Well done you again! Who told you that? Oh, of course, it was me...