Julia Gillard has said some things about political debate that I think are worth highlighting. There are many things I would disagree with her about, but I think she has hit the nail on the head here.

According to this ABC report http://bit.ly/9Ke7jF

"Ms Gillard signalled a break from Kevin Rudd's asylum seeker policy yesterday, when she said "political correctness" should not be allowed to hinder debate about the issue.

Ms Gillard said people who were anxious about border security should not be labelled racist.

"I'd like to sweep away any sense that people should close down any debate, including this debate, through a sense of self-censorship or political correctness," she said.

"People should feel free to say what they feel. For people to say they're anxious about border security doesn't make them intolerant. It certainly doesn't make them a racist - it means they're expressing a genuine view."

Ms Gillard also says the label "soft" should not be levelled at those who voice concerns about the treatment of detainees.

"People who express concern about children being in detention, that doesn't mean they're soft on border protection - it just means they're expressing a real human concern," she said."

This is the OLO approach. But what really interests me is, after we have been practicing this approach for 11 years now, has it made a difference to how the OLO community approach this issue?

Well, no, because there's still financial and political agenda that gets in the road of humanity.

Ms Gillard’s challenge will be less about government ministerial compliance and more about getting the commentariat to join in. Like many other topics, refugee advocacy has come to rely on intolerance of contrary views as expressed by name calling, public vilification and hiding behind PC.

I object to comments from our PM that I should be allowed to have my views heard without vilification; don’t I have that right now? The mere fact that our PM has needed to say this is indicative of just how powerful, emotive and vocal the commentariat has become.

It is not and never has been about the right to express contrary views; it is about being able to have those views taken into account and without abuse and vilification.

Sadly GY, it is no different on OLO, just check the advocacy responses on current refugee threads.

Julia Gillard’s address at the Lowy Institute today filled me with dread as she tried to ride two horses with one bum. No acknowledgement of failed current policies, no indication of the time it will take to reach the “regional cooperation” solution (and no, I can’t distinguish it from the Pacific Solution), no indication of what we do with the current 5,000 detainees, 500 of whom are women and children, no indication of how many will arrive before we have the regional solution.

The ALP said they would close the “White Elephant” at Christmas Island. Instead they packed it to the rafters and then reopened some more. We already have Military and Customs fully engaged, 18 patrol boats and numerous aircraft, now we are to build another 8 patrol boats at tax payers expense. Don’t tell me that only 3% of immigration is boatpeople; tell me about the proportional costs.

If I were in the people smuggling business I would be offering “red hot” specials for the next few months to get in before the proposed regional centre in East Timor opens, although I suspect there is no rush really.

This is an unmitigated shambles of a policy, from another tokenistic ALP spinner.

I like and agree with the post GY.
Free speech is often silenced by fear of being targeted.
I am unashamed by JG, her actions are just about the views of middle Australia.
I Have developed a hardening against boat people getting an advantage over those who stay in camps waiting.
Both sides offer a harder approach, because voters want it.
I find Abbott's plan harder to implement, is it not true if no papers can Be found no country may except them.
And the plug will be pulled boats sank as our Navy comes near.
East Timor must be involved because its economy will get a hand.

Over time I think that the OLO community polarises into two categories: those, whose prime purpose in coming onto the Forum is either to push a particular line, or to attempt to shut down debate on particular subjects, who unless sucessful generally eventually leave, or, remaining, eventually lose all credibility; and those who with time get to be able to look behind the labeling that may have been applied to other posters and engage in useful, maybe even revelatory, debate.

Whislt on OLO we are continuously, although not exclusively, bombarded by the commentariat, it is the OLO community (ie the registered users) that determines what it will discuss. It does this in a negative way with respect to the articles area of the Forum by simply not posting responses to articles in some cases. It does it in a more direct way in the General Discussion area by putting up, subject to a small degree of moderation, the very topics, or aspects of wider issues, it wants to discuss.

How the viewers, as opposed to users, react to this, only OLO Forum administration knows.

This cannot happen outside of OLO, in MainStreamMedia world. That outer world has many predators, called editors, and sometimes even proprietors, that keep many that are not of the tolerated domesticated commentariat or the elect from being heard. In Canberra, Julia is perhaps becoming un-nerved that in the general community this talking-back at the commentariat has become so muted, especially as so many of these mutes are able to vote, and especially as so many government policies have been formulated to satisfy the commentariat, not the mutes.

Julia must be feeling the pressure, feeling the government may have lost touch with the mutes.

Perhaps GrahamY is also under pressure from such as would have him introduce MSM-style censorship into OLO. So far he seems to have resisted it. See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3050#73310

Its harder to shut down the anonymous, once they have established some credibility, if they have a mind to tell things as they see them.

Julia should look to OLO.

Perhaps she already does. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3050#73511

Dear Graham,

The PM's call for a debate on the issues -
is what most of us try to do on OLO.
Does it work? Not always as you probably
know. It's not an easy task to be able
to comprehend another's point of view.
We often think from our own frames of
reference, which to us make perfect sense.
The problem is that we're often unable to
see the limitations of our own frame of
reference.

However, I do admire the PM for her rationality.
Perhaps it may encourage some of us to try harder
in focusing on the issues when debating
on this Forum.