Foxy wrote: I don't believe that hate speech
should be protected under the guise of freedom of speech.
No right is absolute - especially if it does harm
to others.

Dear Foxy,

I agree that no right is absolute, but I disagree that doing harm to others is an adequate reason to limit hate speech.

If someone says what I do not want to hear that does harm to me. That hurts my feelings. I don’t think my hurt feelings are sufficient to shut somebody up. Two questions arise in banning hate speech.

1. How much damage is done?
2. Who decides what constitutes hate speech?

I think Justice Holmes' criterion answers both questions. It must present a clear and present danger. Yelling “Fire” in a crowded theatre where there is no fire or inciting a lynch mob to lynch a particular person are examples of clear and present dangers.

If it does not present a clear and present danger I think hate speech should be protected. I don’t trust anybody to decide whether a speech is hate speech.

Foxy also wrote: “Preconceptions and prejudices, and the rejection, or the fear of someone because he or she is different, is not "one of us", is still virulent all around us. And I am not going to be quiet when I hear or see it being practiced. I will continue to call it out.”

I encourage you to call it out.

…

Dear Joe,

Thank You for your multi-lingual expressions.
Russian, Polish, Greek. I'm impressed.

Dear David,

In case we dismiss this religious intervention in science
as a thing of the past - we need to be aware that on
issues which require radical solutions that are likely to
harm vested economic and political interests, censorship
still exists today.

I remember reading that in Australia in 2006, leading
climatologists with CSIRO were forbidden by the
organization's management from publicly discussing the
implications of climate change. Management was acting on
behalf of the government. And Australia is one of the
stand out countries in terms of human development status.

It is not corrupt. It's science is world class. None of
this mattered. In 2006, the Australian Government's
position was to cast doubt on global warming and refuse to
enter into UN agreements, such as the Kyoto Protocol.

With the release of the Stern Report on climate change, the
Australian Government's position changed - yet the PM remained
half-hearted about a commitment to counter global warming.

Little had changed in all those years from the past when
Galileo was put under house arrest by the Vatican for saying
that the earth moved around the sun. In fact, in 1633, the
church made him recant his theory of the universe.

So new ideas, instead of being welcome for the opportunities
they open up for the improvement of the human lot,
are still seen as threats to those who are comfortable
in their ideologies (religious or otherwise).

I think it is our clarity of vision to realize that -
"What does not change is the will to change" Because I
believe this, my life over the years, in spite of some
adversity, has moved towards fulfilment, with both my
work and with the people who are close to me.

That there can be change, and that there are positive
alternatives is evident. All we need to do is find and
take direction

david f,

Apparently Giordano Bruno was a friend or associate or teacher of Galileo and it was the memory of what happened to Bruno that made Galileo take the Papacy seriously and recant his proposition of a heliocentric solar system.

david f,

Do Foxy's jokes constitute hate speech?

She's obviously doing it on purpose. There should be a law against it.

Her jokes are cruel irrespective of who is on the receiving end.

Mr O,

Here's another of my "cruel" jokes especially for you:

"Nothing is impossible.
The word itself says
I'M POSSIBLE!"

Dear David,

Thank You for telling me that I should continue to
call it out.

Now back to the topic of this discussion - Initiative
for Peace. It's something we need to seriously debate
as the prospect of nuclear war is too frightening to
contemplate and yet we should:

"One cakling kookaburra swept from the trees
Two uneasy emus brought to their knees
Three bustling bandicoots deafened by the sound
Four waddling wombats burnt underground
Five writhing ringtails sliced into meat
Six crisp koalas toasted by the heat
Seven tangled taipans dissected on the grass
Eight playful platypuses melted smooth as glass
Nine crippled kangaroos, mutant crow and currawong
Ten million jolly swagmen floating in the billabong".

The effectiveness of this poem by Philip Neilsen was
obvious from the very frist reading. Subsequent readings
of it to friends and colleagues and family, has produced the
same strong reactions (oh yuck) Philip Neilsen has made a
satire/parody out of a very popular children's
picture book - "The Wooly Wombat"which teaches children to
count, and presents a nursery rhyme about cute Australian
animals.

Nielsen took this firm favourite using the same rhythm and
language and presented us with a slightly different version by
displacing the subject, the poet was tyring to make the
readers take a second look at something we take for
granted, by placing it in a new context (in this case, the
effect of a nuclear blast in Australia). Even the title is
well chosen, "Bush Lullaby" But the sleep in this case
will not be sweet.