Australian Politics.
And yet another example which exemplifies the utter failure of the Right to tackle the things that matter in West.
Niall Ferguson explains the success of the West as coming about from the development of six "killer apps" which allowed it to overtake the rest of the World. I'll have more to say about Ferguson's thesis in later posts but one of Ferguson's glaring omissions with his "apps" thesis is in failing to recognise the "software" used to write them.
One of the principal pieces of "code" is the notion of "objective truth" and the free pursuit of it, from which is derived the principle of freedom of speech and the scientific method. Attack the principles of objective truth or that of freedom of speech and you suddenly undermine the whole of European Civilisation. The code has to be protected at all times otherwise the apps fail to function.
The Left has for years attacked these principles in many ways. Philosophically, through a rejection of Aristotelian metaphysics; socially, through political correctness; and legally by shutting down speech which subjectively offends instead of objectively injures.
"Hate speech" legislation, which places the locus of injury in the subjective response of the victim instead of the objective evidence of injury is perhaps the most pernicious "viruses" undermining Western Civilisation. The problem with this type of legislation is that its most enthusiastic hive-mind advocates pursue its intention with a sense of high minded moral zealotry whilst undermining the very foundations of the society they live in.
All of us know people whom you can't tell certain truths to because they will be offended, and that's the problem with hate speech legislation, It elevates subjective offence of being of greater importance than objective truth. In such societies where the principle of "hate speech" is embraced, the amount of discussion permitted is solely determined by the sensitivity of the victims and the recognition by the courts of the injury.
When this retard said that Christian opposition to homosexuality rested on "hate" rather than religious principal, you already know how the courts are going to rule when the heat is put on the Christians. More importantly, you also know that when it comes to a discussion about Gay issues, the limits of conversation are going to be set by the "sensitivity" of the those who are offended. If you want to shut down debate, find offence in everything your opponent says.
That is why the current backflip by the Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott is quite simply a disgrace. The Conservatives went to the election with the promise of a repeal of the more idiotic elements of the hate speech legislation. This was a piece of legislation that would have cost next to nothing to repeal and was seen as unpopular by the average Australian but perhaps not in the crowd that the Prime Minister moves in.
Now, with next to minimal pressure, they've decided to support it. Furthermore, it's a backflip by a man who is both a genuinely committed Catholic and the leader of the Conservative faction in Australian politics. Furthermore, he was educated at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar.
Some take home messages from this utterly dismal episode.
1) A prestigious university education does not guarantee you a brain.
2) Being pious does not protect you from metaphysical and moral stupidity.
3) Calling yourself a conservative does not make you one.
4) Political Conservatism in Australia is dead.
3 comments:
Nice analysis. I'm glad I stumbled upon your blog. Keep up the good work.
One can no longer take it for granted, doctor, that legislatures, courts, and leaders will uphold free speech on controversial matters like homosexuality (I say this, by the way, as one who is generally sympathetic to homosexuals and lesbians, although I suspect that things like gay marriage will probably not work out so well in practice). Certainly not in the U.S. anyway, and it would seem to a certain degree not in your neck of the woods as well. If conservatives, libertarians, and honest liberals want elites like your Abbott to not give in to radical minorities, then such elites will have to be held accountable. More generally, this means that citizens will have to fight—in a prudent and realistic way, of course—for their rights and vote against candidates who do not support religious and academic freedom, boycott those companies that make scapegoats of those who have unpopular convictions (e.g. Motorola), and stick up for those who actually believe in open dialogue and debate (for instance, by offering patronage to church leaders, intellectuals, and true free thinkers who at some risk to themselves offer challenging opinions publicly). People can no longer be passive—they must be active.
People can no longer be passive—they must be active.
I agree.
As bad as it is politically in the short term, one of the encouraging signs at the moment is the fracturing of Right Wing conservative movements across the globe. It seems to be that the Right is trying to purify itself of its malignant elements. The Tea Party being one such example.
In my mind, though, one of the biggest problems facing the Right is knowing "exactly" what it stands for, and some of the "alternative" Right wing factions are not really Right wing all.
It's important not only that we act, but that we act correctly. But you are right, we can no longer be passive. We now have to suffer the price of our convictions.
Post a Comment