Foxy,

Because the judge mentioned inaccuracies did not mean that is what Bolt was convicted of. Read the judgement in full.

SR,

My argument is on 2 clearly defined issues
1) message
2) delivery method,
You are the one erroneously conflating them.

While there is a tort argument that with no delivery method there is no free speech, the reality is that there is a multitude of delivery methods available.

Monis had the opportunity to deliver the letters by hand, post them to someone that would, take out ads in local papers, or any of a multitude of delivery methods. He could even have changed his wording so as to get the message across without being so offensive.

The claim that the inability to deliver abusive letters by post is an infringement of freedom of speech is a bit of a stretch.

On the other side of the coin, 18c clearly bans any public statement that might be perceived as racially offensive. This is a clear violation of the right of free speech.

Dear Shadow Minister,

The central issue in the Bolt judgement was not
whether Mr Bolt's articles were an expression of
opinion, but whether the factual allegations on which
that opinion was based were accurate.

The judge concluded that the case was not about
freedom of opinion, it was about freedom to spread
untruths.

I did read the full transcript - as did Emma Alberici in
her interview on Lateline with Attorney General George
Brandis.

Cheers.

Hi Loudmouth,

My post was not about physical but verbal violence; I used the metaphor of different recipients of such punches to underline the difference between the Archbishop's and imams’ reactions to the cartoons. Of course, a hundred or so years ago the Archbishop would have reacted not much differently from contemporary imams.

The problem is not with a “comment that somebody somewhere might find insulting” but with caricatures serving no other purpose than to offend over a billion people.

Dear Banjo (and also Loudmoth),

>>« The question is only whether this implies the right to offend, insult, »
.That’s right, George, that is the crux of the problem. <<

In http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6699#202947 I wrote of three levels of this problem: legal, decency and practical.

I might agree with most of what you wrote as far as the legal dimension is concerned, although there are also limits to what is allowed, what groups or views you are not allowed to offend even in Western countries.

Where I see problems is when indecency, rudeness, impudence etc are elevated to the level of a “right” to offend. It is my good right to criticise what you say but it should not be my “right” to make a point by saying something offensive, vulgar, about e.g. your deceased mother.

On the third, practical level, is it worth to make use of such “right”, which offends a billion of people with thousands among them ready to react violently? Is this the best way to integrate Muslims, who keep on coming into Europe (and Australia) , into Western culture, or make them accept our justified criticism of, say, their treatment of women?

Poirot,

This is a good illustration of the difference between the legal and mere decency levels of the offence question. A different judge might have decided differently, I think the law is rather fluent here. After all, that advertisement offended not only the religious feelings but also Europeans’ cultural self-awareness, notably in Italy. In Catholic Philippines practically nobody would associate the advertisement with anything to do with Jesus, unless explicitly told so.

Another question is, did the advertisers really think that this would have sold more of their products? I am sure it would not a couple of decades ago, but maybe Dan Brown’s “Da Vinci Code” made that difference. If so, what does this say about modern Europe’s attitude towards its own cultural heritage?

.

DearGeorge,

.

« Where I see problems is when indecency, rudeness, impudence etc are elevated to the level of a “right” to offend. »

.

I know what you are saying and I generally try to be a fairly decent and respectful person myself. Though I occasionally read Charlie Hebdo, it’s not really my cup of tea. I prefer elegance and refinement to vulgarity and I prefer prose, poetry and song to cartoons.

In Europe, of course, we have a wide range of political and philosophical currents and under-currents - from the extreme left to the extreme right, including anarchists, free-thinkers, libertarians and many others. Our societies are multicultural, mature, broad-minded and tolerant. The melting pot simmers gently without boiling over.

What has changed, in my opinion, is the interconnectedness and interaction of the less advanced societies and civilisations with ours. What they see shocks them. It is not just religion, our whole way of life is an insult to them.

As somebody observed: when a butterfly bats its wings on one side of the world, it causes a hurricane on the other side of the world.

While I don’t particularly like what they do at Charlie Hebdo, in my view, it would be a regression of our civilisation for them to be prevented from doing it.

From a purely “decency” point of view, I think the French attitude, prior to the terrorist attack, was the most appropriate: just ignore it.

Charlie Hebdo does not impose anything on anybody. The Muslims, Jews and Christians do not either. The jihads want to impose their law on everybody.

Before the attack, Charlie Hebdo was practically unknown and close to bankruptcy. Now it is known worldwide and its coffers are overflowing. The jihads have thrown it onto the world scene under the spotlights for all to see and demand that it be condemned.

They have won the battle, but, happily, they have not yet won the war.

Unfortunately, they have succeeded in polarising public opinion for or against, with no in-between. There is no fence to sit on.

.

Hi George,

Fascinating. Do you see a slight contradiction here:

" ..... is it worth to make use of such “right”, which offends a billion of people with thousands among them ready to react violently? Is this the best way to integrate Muslims, who keep on coming into Europe (and Australia) ..... "

not to mention a back-handed slur, and a concession to terrorism ?

Surely you should have the right, when attempting to express yourself, to say or write something which you suspect I might find offensive or insulting ? What is the point of OLO if none of us ever offends any other poster ? Women's Weekly dialogue, deferring to the decency police ? Is that what we want ?

Of course, that freedom must include the right to say or write something that you or I wouldn't, provided it doesn't deliberately humiliate, intimidate or incite violence: neither you or I should stand on guard, at the gates of what is polite and therefore acceptable, keeping out infringers.

As for the integration of people who supposedly can't take any criticism without resorting to violence, as you imply, perhaps we need to be more attentive, once they are here, to educating people to understand the notion of human rights - theirs, as well as those of others - in the modern world. IF it is necessary, that is.

Joe