[LINK] Academics branded 'anti-US over FTA research'

[Craig Sanders]

On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 11:34:12AM +1000, Alan L Tyree wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 11:00:06 +1000
> Craig Sanders <cas at taz.net.au> wrote:
> > actually, one of the left's major moral strong points (and
> > simultaneously one of their strategic weaknesses) is their willingness
> > to let others have their say, even if they vehemently disagree with
> > them. it can't be any different, that is one of the things that
> > distinguishes the left from the right...to adopt the same oppressive
> > strategy as the right is to become them.
> 
> I don't think that this is correct now if, indeed, it ever was. It is
> left wing students who disrupt meetings in this country, not the black
> shirts. It is the left who has encouraged the passing of laws that
> criminalise speech on the grounds that it is offensive.
> 
> The difference here is not between left and right. Left wing
> dictatorships have always had speech laws which are identical (except
> for the subjects permitted) to those of right wing dictatorships.
> 
> On the local scene, it is hard to tell the difference (from a free
> speech perspective) between the left wing labour party and the right
> wing lunatics of the libs. Both use all means possible to silence
> dissent.

you're already far into the realm of absurdity if you are claiming that the
labour party is in any way left wing.

they're perhaps not so rabidly extreme right-wing as the liberal party,
but they're certainly nowhere near left wing...they haven't been since
Hawke purged the party of the left in the 80s.

the labour party consists of grey-suited clones who care nothing for
the labour party's ideals and grassroots - it's just a convenient
route to political power. and a handful of hangers-on who aren't quite
disillusioned or disgusted enough to retire yet, who still hold on to
a forlorn hope that the labour party can be restored. 


> I don't think that there is a strong free speech lobby in Australia.
> All sides find it too easy to override free speech by appealing to a
> higher good. The problem is that the "higher good" differs depending on
> your political outlook.

there's more than just Labour and Liberal, and those two don't even
describe any kind of oppositional ideology - they're not left vs right,
they're far right vs extreme right.

old-school Liberals like Fraser are far closer to a lefty viewpoint than
most of the current crop of labour, at least on human rights issues.


> > > Your view, that it is ok even if you do not like the position
> > > taken, is not the norm, Jan. Students disrupt speakers that they
> > > don't like, universities don't let people like David Irving or
> > > Andrew Fraser have the right to speak, 
> > 
> > the right to free speech does NOT include the right to demand a forum
> > or the right to force others to listen or the right to silence
> > opposing voices.
> 
> Or, it would seem, the right to speak when invited or the right to teach
> when employed if your views are unpopular.
> 
> If students disrupt speeches on the basis that they do not approve of
> what is being said, that is, for all intents and purposes, a denial of
> free speech. 

no it isn't.  it is them exercising THEIR right to free speech.


> Put another way, free speech is an illusion if you are
> going to get the crap beat out of you for exercising the option.

shouting over the top of someone you disagree with is NOT the same as beating
the crap out of them.

> And this is true whether the disrupters are well-meaning lefties or
> brutal black shirt fascists.

it's the black-shirt fascists who do the beating.  


> Which part of the previous paragraph do you disagree with?

being louder than those you agree with is not 'using force'. it's
expressing your own right to free speech - this is the essence of
protest. it only becomes 'using force' when actual force - violence or
credible threat of same - is used.

craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>           (part time cyborg)