It's hard to see how freedom of speech is aided by allowing or tacitly condoning racism. Racial vilification adds nothing to political debate: it's an exercise in the power of exclusion.

Abbott's position has little to with a genuine concern for freedom and more to do with dog whistling to bigots.

The problem with your response Michael Brown, is that it turns "free speech" into an abstraction. The purpose of free speech is to empower people to resist arbitrary authority, in part by allowing them to make informed judgements about the circumstances attending the exercise of power.

As a matter of practice, liberal pluralist communities tend to give a fairly wide discretion to people to declaim and express themselves on the usages of authority and power not because ignorant or racist speech is desirable but because attempting to define and distinguish good faith attempts to inform and participate in public discourse is very difficult to do in non-arbitrary ways. The "free speech" fundamentalists are in practioce relying on this system problem to assert an unconstrained right to exercise speech rights reagrdless of their likely impact on the freredom and scope for individuals to participate in their governance.

The reality is of course that no society allows unfettered speech. Laws against child exploitation prohibit all manner of "speech" on the strength of nothing more than the capacity of such material to underpin criminal conduct. Intellectual property law can constrain what one wears to public venues. Fiduciary duty may prevent certain disclosures. There is national security and industrial espionage -- and of course defamation.

Whatver one thinks of these constraints, all societies make judgements about how to fetter speech in the service of public good and what sanctions to impose when the fetters are challenged. S18c is no different. It provides a relief process comparable to that available under tort law to those aggrieved on the basis of their ostensible ethnicity. While the action is ostensibly under the statute law, it is civil in character and the penalties do not include monetary damages. In essence, there is purely specific performance -- a retraction and apology, and that only if the court can be satsified that the words are not merely offensive but not uttered in good faith. In determining that, the court takes account of factual integrity.

That, it seems to me, is no serious fetter to any legitimate desire for self-expression a fair minded person might have.

What is a fair minded person?
A judge who claims to be able to read between the lines. Not in my opinion.
Does this mean that I am not a fair minded person ?
My children have been shown "An Inconvenient Truth" by science teachers innumerable times, but they have never told about the views of an English judge on its accuracy. Are they fair minded teachers? They claim to be so.
My children have been told of all of Gough Whitlam's achievements. But they remain singularly uninformed of his failures. These teachers also claimed to be fair minded, but were offended and insulted when they were reminded of his failures.

Caspar..

who is the censor? who determines what is a racist comment and what is just harse reality.. we are all grown ups and we should just learn to accept the responsiblity communicate the good and bad.. nothing can be resolved without discussion.. so just grow up

Firstly, if we agree that we should have libel laws, and I expect we do, then we also accept the judicial process that goes with them. An analogous process is clearly applicable to racial vilification.

Secondly, it follows that if you accept the legitimacy of libel laws then you already accept reasonable constraints on speech. Racial vilification tends to be more damaging than libel because it has the potential to injure a large number of people. Neither racism nor libel have a basis in reality, harsh or otherwise; surely both are unacceptable.

As an aside, please refrain from making personal remarks. If we are all indeed adults then I'm sure we can debate the issue on its own terms.

@Casper,

we all talking about hyperthicals.. "racial comments" and "damaging comments"... by which mythical creature's standards?

surely we are mocking the intellengence of the people in this country! that we are not mature enough to live with each other? I find it offensive that new laws are to be enacted to deny my right to use whatever words i feel fit to deal with any specific situation..

next we will not be allowed to have jokes.. this is chaos here and we do not joke HERE!

how about we get a big mumy in the sky to tell us all what to do?

"I find it offensive that new laws are to be enacted to deny my right to use whatever words i feel fit to deal with any specific situation ..."

OK ... It's a free country. You are entitled to feel offended. I'm entitled not to be troubled by that or and to assume that you are misrepresenting the situation.

It seems to me though that any legitimate claim you have to speech is not being impinged. As the Bolt case made clear, Bolt was entitled to be as offensive as he thought apt. What he was not entitled to do is to underpin his offensive observations with claims that were demonstrably incorrect and defamatory. He was, as the saying goes, entitled to his own opinions -- just not his own facts.

"next we will not be allowed to have jokes"

Ah .. a slippery slope argument ...

"how about we get a big mumy in the sky to tell us all what to do?"

Now you're just ranting.

{My children have been shown "An Inconvenient Truth" by science teachers innumerable times, }

Doubtful. You could count them. You should have said "often" or "more than once or twice". Resort to hyperbole subverts your claim to fairmindedness.

{but they have never told about the views of an English judge on its accuracy. }

I don't know, but none of the inaccuracies (9 of them) were significant from a climate science point of view. The substantive claims in AIC simply repeat well attested science.

{Are they fair minded teachers? They claim to be so.}

The question is trolling. You've presented no evidence that they aren't.

{My children have been told of all of Gough Whitlam's achievements. But they remain singularly uninformed of his failures.}

Again, your claim is non-specific. Firstly, you'd have to outline the failures you felt should have been mentioned, then show that they were indeed failures, then show that it was germane to the outcomes of the course in which Gough Whitlam was mentioned and that these things were left out. As someone who has taught Stage 4-5 History, problems in governance of that period were discussed in my classes within the time constraints applying.

How any of this is germane to Section 18c is hard to see however. It seems that you have an entirely different reason than concern over the RDA's effect on speech rights for declaiming in this forum. You are simply fighting the rightwing side of the culture wars of the Howard period.

@Fran

if the bolt of lighting that has destroyed the world is all you have, sorry but i reserve the right to remain offended by this "do gooder" approach that is purported to know better than everyone else.. This simple minded blanket approach to censorship treats the citizens of this country as being stupid and incapable of free thought. I AM OFFENDED and demand you stop this nonsense!.

the world is not flat, and nor is the circumstance that surround any particular issue.. including Andrew Bolts comments, which i have not familiar with so I have no specific comments. However, as has been noted by another poster(s), that Andrew's comments has raised for discussion the whole subject, so now what was once said behind closed doors in now in the open for a public discuss, rather than allow it to fester.

I would like to bring to your attention Andy Brevik, who claimed that the justification of his violent outburst was that the media will not discuss the "Islamic" issues in his country so He felt He had to "punish the traitors".. Here is a perfect example of what can happen when we suppress discussions..

so better out than it.

I used the term innumerable in relation to my children's mathematical ability.
I think that it was accurate in that context.

You just don't get it do you?

Students watching an inconvenient truth containing fairly complex concepts and statistics are I would hope at least numerate up to say.....10. I doubt very much any teacher would ever want to expose children to even a doco as good as this ten times let alone themselves.

@Budgie

what is the to get? That I should expect that some blanket rule preventing people from expressing their opinion good or bad will solve the world's problem?

Should my posting be removed if i start to make some questionable comments about reds under the bed and Red is an inferrior colour or stop your bleeding complaints?

Wikipedia:

Two pairs of court-appointed psychiatrists have examined Breivik prior to his 2012 trial. In the first report Breivik was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.[20] A second evaluation was commissioned following widespread criticism of the first report.[21] One week before the start of his trial the second psychiatric evaluation was published with the conclusion that Breivik was not psychotic during the attacks and he was not psychotic during their evaluation;[22] rather he is an extreme narcissist.

@Budgie

have you read any of Breivek's reason's given as to why he did what he did? He complains of censorship as being the reason he took his justice into his own hands.. censorship..

there are people like geert wilder who on the other hand was taken to court for his publication of "fitna" ... He is out spoken and has been cleared in a court of law.. but there are still those that do not like his message and say he should be shut down.. At least there is dialog..

Along with racism, these terms have become very elastic.

I am repulsed by such a regulated press.
Already I regularly visit overseas online newspapers that are not as filtered by left-leaning journalists as Australia's are.
Google translate is a wonderful tool.
Many overseas English-language newspapers have second rate reporters working for them.

Our "press" is not regulated except to the extent that cross-media rules amount to regulation -- and there this is not greatly different from what the ACCCseeks to do in maintaining competition policy -- which in this ciountry is uncontroversial.

I see no basis for saying that the content of media is "filtered" buy left leaning journalists. The content seems on the whole to be "filtered" by those who are either vacuous, ignorant and indolent or sympathetic to the Murdoch/Big Miners/coalition agenda. It's easy to mix these two groups up. They cohabit so nicely.

Yeah, especially the Murdoch rags in Britain who seem to be in a spot of bother.

No-one is talking about regulating media but wouldn't it be good if they published verified facts instead of nonsense posing as facts.

Rajan Venkataraman,

"And personally, I would prefer that the racists speak their mind so that they and their views are exposed to counter-argument and ridicule."

I'm not sure how effective this would be, particularly if an individual's prejudices were widely held and reinforced by the ethnic group to which he or she belonged. You appear to be assuming that racists are isolated individuals open to reasoned argument I don't think that is the case, otherwise there wouldn't be those ethnic conflicts that have continued in some regions for centuries. To avoid similar developments in this country we should employ the law, now--of course the devil is in the details.

Rajan Venkataraman,

Mill also formulated the 'harm principle' by which he argued that:

"the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others".

Applying the harm principle to the principle of free speech allows for reasonable curtailment of free speech where such speech, no matter how sincerely it represents the beliefs of the speaker or established truth, is liable to bring harm to people. Mill considered this and concluded certain speech in particular circumstances can do harm:

"he suggests that it is acceptable to claim that corn dealers starve the poor if such a view is expressed through the medium of the printed page. It is not acceptable to express the same view to an angry mob, ready to explode, that has gathered outside the house of the corn dealer. The difference between the two is that the latter is an expression “such as to constitute…a positive instigation to some mischievous act,” (1978, 53), namely, to place the rights, and possibly the life, of the corn dealer in danger."

The discussion quoted above is fully explored at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/#JohStuMilHarPri.

In Australia, for example, Bolt's questioning of the authenticity of certain persons Aboriginality was liable to do harm to those persons, and to the wider Aboriginal community, because they were made in an historical context of genocide against Aboriginal people and ongoing, constant denigration of their identity.

Hi Anthony, I think words, however crazy, rarely incite people to do physical harm. If they do, such incitement is covered by other laws anyway.

I agree with Rajan that it's better to expose and confront stupid ideas. Normal people can cope with this. They don't need to be shielded from unsavoury opinions in case they're whipped into a frenzy.

James Jenkin,

Which other laws cover incitement to do physical harm?

Beyond that it is important to reconstitute Mill's concept of harm to accommodate the reality of living in complex, cosmopolitan democracies. Hopefully, our notion of what constitutes harm has moved on since the days when direct physical harm to corn dealers set the horizon of Mill's political imagination.

Do you see that the court case against Bolt is exactly the process by which stupid ideas were exposed and confronted? Besides, Bolt lost his case primarily because he didn't get his facts right. Nothing more stupid than that for a journalist.

{ it's better to expose and confront stupid ideas. Normal people can cope with this. They don't need to be shielded from unsavoury opinions in case they're whipped into a frenzy.}

That's not the point. Tolerance of expressly racist baiting in the media creates a context in which many will take this as a legitimate expression or attitude. That might lead very few to expressly criminal conduct, but it creates an undesirable starting point for social inclusion or disempowered people.

That such views are expressly disavowed and derogated means that it is the bigots who are forced onto the defensive about their views -- which is as it should be.

{ it's better to expose and confront stupid ideas. Normal people can cope with this. They don't need to be shielded from unsavoury opinions in case they're whipped into a frenzy.}

That's not the point. Tolerance of expressly racist baiting in the media creates a context in which many will take this as a legitimate expression or attitude. That might lead very few to expressly criminal conduct, but it creates an undesirable starting point for social inclusion or disempowered people.

That such views are expressly disavowed and derogated means that it is the bigots who are forced onto the defensive about their views -- which is as it should be.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/jewish-call-to-curb-compassion-20120808-23ss4.html

Ah, yes the Jewish community are the first to squeal if they feel the slightest hint of one thing said against the policies of Israel. Yet when Robert Magid publishes filth like this the policy it silent.

The ABC don't convene panels of jews to condemn Magid, the Newsltd. media don't demand that all jews apologise for the words of Magid.

But imagine if a muslim here said these vile things about Jews?

Hi Anthony

We have incitement to violence laws (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/bill_em/caatvb2005405/memo_0.html).

Yes, I agree, people can feel 'harmed' by words. But can laws define and measure this harm? Is the legal system the best way to engender civil behaviour? I think society develops by people themselves dealing with conflict and insult.

Since when has the law been effective in making people good?
Surely there have been laws against murder for centuries, but it still occurs.

Philip, my initial reaction was the same as yours but then I read the passage a few times and I could see the logical consistency of the argument. However, while I believe it is consistent, I don't think the argument is valid. Why should the presumption be more important in one case than the other? I think the PRESUMPTION should be equally important in all cases although the UTILITY of commenting about more powerful people is probably more important.

Sometimes I really do believe he's a "ring in". I have never heard Michael Ronaldson or Ted Baillieu to name a couple, come out with the diatribe he does, surely there are better ways to put your arguemnt accross.

What on earth is happening at Wollongong University? A decent working class town it used to be, now hosting some cancerous growth of self-centred, self-made-mannism.

What part of socialism makes you think it is outside Our Western Enlightenment (God-laden) values Robert? I would have thought that good old god-fearing Germany qualified as being part of the west, yet they produced Marx. But of course he was Jewish. Not one of us at all. Robert Owen, William Morris, Bernard Shaw ... they western enough for you?

What part of the Blot judgement do you specifically find issue with? The major stumbling block for Bolt was that, in his haste to say something offensive - to make his point about the "Aboriginal industry" by citing his examples - he didn't check his facts - instead he just went off the top of his addled head and he got it wrong. The malice was thus self-evident, the good faith was absent.

And it was not just the individuals he was offending. The entire purpose of the article was to decry these educated pale blackfellas who, according to Blot, were not entitled to support or to participation in what he regarded as an industry of claimants and special privilege. Quite simply, not black enough.

But that's not how these things work Robert. There's more to being aboriginal than the colour of one's skin and the fuzziness of one's hair. It's about identity and who one grew up with, who one's mates are, who regards you as a mate and as family. It's about belonging to a community.

To be quite honest I'm really not a big fan of the notion of "race" ... I think it is a superficial and archaic concept that has no basis in genetics or biology. There are far greater genetic differences within a race than between them.

But as for defending Blot as some muzzled martyr to political correctness and the errors of judges, find a better journalist, find someone who speaks the truth, find someone who is above making false and offensive insinuations - not just against those he named, but against all my Koori mates with red hair and freckles.

Freedom of speech does not run to telling malicious lies, Robert, or to arguing or making insinuations against a whole class of persons based on such falsehoods either. We learned that from watching Goebbels and his ilk. .

"From the saintly and single-minded idealist to the fanatic is often but a step." FA Hayek - The Constitution of Liberty

I believe that group think is at the core of what passes for progressive thought. Thus it is both deeply delusional and resistant to compromise. One would have to embrace the pissant progressive worldview as a whole to pass muster.

But it is impossible to have even an open and free discussion if my quite innocuous comments are moderated out in this so called forum. Let's see where did I go wrong?

Don't care - I guess I will be moseying along.

"One would have to embrace the pissant progressive worldview as a whole to pass muster."

No not really Robert ... we have our disagreements - some fancy nuclear power, others wind turbines, some are god botherers others leave god alone... we have chats, we have brawls. I'm sorry you feel so outside the group-think. In English that is called a consensus incidentally and is not a bad thing.

I didn't read what you wrote but by and large they are pretty free-wheeling regarding moderation here unless someone reports abuse on one of several specific grounds... I usually get pinged for violating "community standards"... that's OK it's been a life-long problem for me that one... I think a lot of our community standards are pretty shocking to be honest.

But one compromises, one accepts the tyranny of the majority - in this case the editor. One reads what others say - even to the point of their quoting Hayek - and treats their ideas with a bit of respect. But robust and informed debate is what we're after here. One expects an argument. One will, with luck, get one.

Guess this is not just your scene, Robert.

Unless it was offensive to the self identified 'Godless horde' wanting contacts with other 'Godless hordes'? If you press the 'report abuse' button you can see the comment and judge for yourself. An overzealous abuse of moderation to limit free speech? No tolerance for colourful language? Is Godless horde offensive? I doubt if Richard Dawkins would agree.

This is twice in my first 2 days on this site. First I was having a perfectly pleasant discussion on the Minoan Civilisation and the causes of its demise - drought or volcano - and quite on topic in a climate post - when comments were inexplicably closed. Now I make innocuous comments in a lighthearted way that is quite in keeping with the tone of the thread and get censored. What the hell is forum about?

Janis has documented eight symptoms of groupthink:

-Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.
-Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions.
-Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
-Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.
-Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views.
-Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.
-Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.
-Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.' http://www.psysr.org/about/pubs_resources/groupthink%20overview.htm

Read the comment and form a view or else hide behind hypocritical cant - it is a disgrace, a sham, an abuse of free speech - defend it if you will.

Yes Robert I know what group-think is, or is purported to be... a closed self-structured and enforced adherence to the Truth of the Mission. My country 'tis of thee sort of stuff. Where failure is impossible, not countenanced, not considered and denied when it becomes apparent.

If you want to have a squizz at serious group think have a look at the decisions of corporations - particularly banks. Must maintain that positive - yes we can - attitude, be a good team player and get with the program!!!! Group-think runs on slogans.

I just can't see much evidence of it here that's all. We can't bloody well stop arguing and bickering.

So don't feel too persecuted. Heresy is quite acceptable out here with the Godless hordes. But you've gotta be able to spin a decent informed story to back it up.

No - I didn't suppose that the cult of the post-modernist pissant progressive would have much in the way of self awareness
.
Hayek is another matter entirely - may I ask if you have had any actual exposure or are merely relying on slogans?

"From the saintly and single-minded idealist to the fanatic is often but a step."
Was an observation on the bloody history of socialism last century. It is a reminder of what should never be permitted again.

The economic principles pioneered by Hayek are the core of a properly functioning economy. Chief amongst these is the management of interest rates to prevent asset bubbles. This is something we take very seriously in Australia every month when the Reserve Bank board meets. Second that government budgets balance - somewhere south of 30% of GDP hopefully. Hayek would counsel against 'quantitative easing' and deficit spending.

Hayek social philosophies emerge directly from enlightenment ideals of individual freedom, democracy, the separation of church and state and the rule of law. Free markets are necessary for free peoples – but they are markets are ruled by laws to protect the many against the ruthless few and governed to maintain fairness. Laws exist in general to protect the weak against the strong or brutal. There is no reason in principal that laws should not protect the young, workers, the environment, etc. Governments exist to provide services that the market can’t or won’t.

Markets and banks have been fairly well managed in Australia in recent decades. Some State finances leave much to be desired. Your slogans about the banks are a reminder that not all Australians have a rational economic or social theory but tend to indulge in groupthink - well – slogans and anticipate that things will work out magic pudding like. So freedom needs to be defended and s 18c sets the bar too low on robust freedoms of speech. The recent media enquiries are a travesty intended to restrict free speech on topics dear to the chattering classes.

First up, welcome to the chattering classes Robert. Glad you could join us.

Yes, as a recovering economist I've had a passing acquaintance with Hayek ... he was after all Maggie Thatcher's favourite source of inspiration.

Now while we are talking about bloodthirsty regimes of the last century - let's have a look further back shall we - to the bloodthirsty regimes of the previous century - the ones that saw the birth of socialism as a political theory... the age of empires... the French and Belgians In Africa, the Brits as well, plus India.... just about everyone in China... The days when demonstrating or going on strike could get you seriously dead... is that the sort of democracy you mean? When voting was restricted to male property owners?

See Robert this sort of abstraction is meaningless without context and history - ideas don't just float about like bubbles.

So who is Hayek talking about when he says: "From the saintly and single-minded idealist to the fanatic is often but a step." Stalin? Mao? Lenin? Einstein? Picasso? Bertrand Russell? Bob Hawke, Gough? Who and when Robert? Is this actually true? Anywhere?.

It is perhaps true if one looks to Germany, Austria, Hungary, Italy, Spain in the early part of the century... where normal folks, like school teachers, librarians and policemen stood back while the fascists stepped in and many got jobs making the trains to the camps run on time and oiling the wheels of the business.

But to be honest I find this enthusiasm for defending Andrew Blot's freedom to make stuff up and libel people - with malice and intent - and to libel a group as a whole - rather misplaced. Can't you find a better hero?

I also find your defence of Our Freedoms and corner shop economics like ALWAYS ALWAYS running a break even or surplus budget curiously quixotic. I guess you'd be in there demanding a return to the gold standard as well, yes? It's all very 1950s.

Robert the reason Australia didn't fall into the GFC hole was because firstly the slavering bolsheviks of the Keating Era regulated their prudential requirements and stopped them doing what everyone else was doing. The banks didn't like it. Then the appalling Godless hordes of the Rudd and then Gillard Governments threw money out into the economy and kept things ticking over. It was NOT because Australian banks were clever or well managed - our rules were better... our Godless hordian socialist regulations and controls.

Using monetary policy alone is a very blunt tool to try and control asset bubbles Robert - you slam down on the whole economy to prevent distortions and asset inflation. Increase unemployment, lower GDP, a constant grinding credit squeeze. But then there's all this cash sloshing about - what do we do - I know! Let's stop the banks from lending, let's stop folks borrowing. Let's force them to put funds offshore. Those American CDOs look good. Or Greek Government bonds. Can't go wrong.

See there's a problem with Hayek again. This lovely modelling system has a tendency to throw a turn every now and again.... everything from tulip bulbs to housing to ponzi schemes and CDOs. It's built in. And it takes more than slogans - like free people need free markets - to actually hold things together.

Now Robert - fewer slogans and more facts please. Less of your Godly marginal group-think mate. Not the right place for it.

Although the defense of Andrew Bolt seems a defense of the indefensible in this case - it should still not be an offence in law as opposed to a offence against good taste which might occassionally occur and is a price of freedom.

Now you may spring to the defense of these white, middle class, well educated, literate and high profile aborignes - and that is your right. Far be it for me to object.

The rest of the ramble likewise lacked much in the way of rationality. It is a dismal calculus fitting for a recovering economist to equate 100 million dead in socialist regimes to the European empires. It is just a nonsense rationalisation par for the course for the Godless hordes - the new barbarians at the gates of a western civilisation that has made astonishing strides in human welfare and equity. With much of course still to be done in bringing the benefits of free markets and democracy to a still suffering and hungry world.

That brings us to a stark contrast in the positions of us and them - or indeed you and me. The chattering classes typically talk about the impossibility of exponential growth in a finite world. I say - let's do the experiment and find out. Your way seems to lead inexorably to more billions of blighted lives this century.

Regardless the management of interest rates is far from a blunt instrument. It is done every month to fine tune economic activity and to keep inflation within a range. In ordinary times it is the primary mechanism for managing the economy and has worked remarkably well over the past 21 years of sustained economic growth. As for splashing money about - I would suggest that patroll tax cuts and interest rate decreases (which hapopened) would have been a more sensible appoach.

Whether or not the banks liked the prudential regulation is neither here nor there. You seem to specialise in straw men the number and variety of which I don't intend to keep up with. Perhaps it is fitting for someone of your new profession - but you need more than straw men to make a rational argument.

BTW - I complained to Andrew Jaspan about being censored - who replied - 'What a way you have with words. Congrats.' Now what the hell is that about? LOL

OK Robert, enough ramblings. Although in my defence I was simply addressing the rather wide ranging critiques you were hurling about.

Let's just talk about this - the subject of the piece:

"Now you may spring to the defense of these white, middle class, well educated, literate and high profile aborignes - and that is your right. Far be it for me to object."

But then you do. Just like Blot.

What should Aboriginal folks look like? Well obviously they should be black with fuzzy hair I guess. The fact that there has been this appalling miscegenation - the bleaching and red-hairisation of the locals (I blame the Irish myself) means that anyone with European blood is not - cannot be - Aboriginal.

Now here's a fact just to cloud things a bit as they often do - ever read The Chant of Jimmy Blacksmith by Tom Keneally. It's based on the murderous explosion of Jimmy Governor - a local lad who decided to remove the welcome mat with terminal effect. He struck terror into the hearts of the police, judiciary and the locals around 1900. He came from my neighbourhood. He had flaming red hair. Scottish red hair.

See Robert this mixing has been going on for a very long time. Was he less Aboriginal for that? Certainly not to judge from the abuse and scorn he received when he tried to settle down and establish himself as a farmer and married a white woman. It was the locals' treatment of her that triggered his explosive campaign.

Identity is far far more complicated that what you look like - how fuzzy your hair is? It is about belonging to a family, to a community, being recognised and accepted. Conversely some might suggest it is also about NOT belonging to OUR family, not being part of OUR community, about being someone we "nice" folks wouldn't want to see marrying our daughter.

See Robert implicit in your statement above (and Blot's crime) is that Aboriginal people should not - cannot - be white-looking, they cannot be "middle class", they cannot be educated, literate or have a high profile. Apparently they should be black as coal, dirt poor, ignorant, illiterate and abjectly anonymous.

Fortunately this is wrong both in logic and in fact.

Aboriginal people - people who identify themselves and are, in turn identified by, Aboriginal communities - come in all shapes and sizes - with Chinese, Afghan, Irish and Scottish genes thrown into the mix. They go to school. They become professors and lawyers. They win arguments in the High Court. They drive better cars than me. They are part of us. A good thing yes?

Or would you prefer that they remained in tin sheds, surrounded by decaying utes and dogs living in the dirt.... they could then remain worthy and deserving of your charity.

See that's the real problem isn't it? Don't like these pale blackfellas getting ideas above their station.

As I stated before Robert, "race" is a very dubious notion - quaintly Victorian - very English - far more genetic difference most likely between me and you as there are between you and them actually.

Now I'd assume you have some biology and genetics in your academic qualifications - perhaps you would like to elucidate on that notion and why you think Blot has a right to be outraged by these pale fellas claiming to be Aboriginal.

One last ramble: This western enlightenment intellectual tradition that has given us freedom, democracy separation of church and state ... where did these things actually come from Robert - the banks, the owners of capital, the God-filled pulpits... no, they came from the demands of bolshie left-wing working class and others ... the Godless hordes as you put it. Always forced out of them Robert - always resisted... always the end of the world. Yet here we are. And now they claim credit for them ... as if it was their kindness and vision that gave us universal suffrage, arbitration and progressive taxation - not to mention schools and universities. Bollocks.

Best. Rant. Ever.

On The Conversation at least!

A rant!!!! Excellent. I will assume that as a compliment, Mr M... With deep historical roots.

And here they are:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranter

Perhaps I'm not as Godless a horde as I might have thought.

It was most definitely a complement - a valid and logically formed rant of epic proportions.

err compliment...

And formed while fully clad I can assure you - unlike the obviously devout, but no less debauched - Mr Nolan below.

Thanks Grendelus.

The Ranters sound like a most excellent sect that should be reformed. Like most religions they would have tax exempt status.

Tax exemption and nudity - a marvellous thing.

Amen to that Mr M.... beats Scientology pants down!

But I think I will restrain myself from going the full rant until the weather warms up quite a lot. I'm sure the Lord will understand and even appreciate my tardiness.

@Robert,

i for one appreciate your points and thank you for your input.

and your comment "let's do the experiment and find out. "

is a good motto for life, the universe and everything

I see Mr Ormonde that you accuse me of depravity because of the converted and now Holy state of my nether regions! That's all very well, isn't it, coming from an advocate of Napoleonic revanchism like yourself. I accuse you of trying to form a united front with us Ranters. Infiltrator.

This is just typical of the Ranter mentality ... this greasy smear leading to innuendo ... no wonder Cromwell took you lot down as kindling!

That's the trouble with sects - schismatics and splitters everywhere ... three hours seems a bit early on for our first factional brawl though.

Rest assured I have no intention and no interest whatsoever of infiltrating your nether regions Mr N ... no matter how revanchist my Bonaparte might be feeling. Never again.

Oh you say that now laddie but I knew you in your heady days sans culottes. Always an extremist but not to fear another hour or two and we'll have the shirt of your back!

Thank you Dave for your thoughts..

are you promoting fear as a problem that we need to be "protected from" .. all the masses are getting a little restless and having an inflated idea of ..democracy! and their own opinion.. dam

what we need is a big brother like you to tell us who the good guys are so that we can be protected in our little sheltered workshops?

Joseph, if you truly think that Rupert Murdoch, Gina Rinehart and Tony Abbott give a fig about the masses, I have a bridge you might be interested in buying once you finish drinking that Kool-aid.

Fear is indeed a problem we need to be 'protected from' when it is manufactured, packaged and delivered to achieve a political aim.

If it helps, I will Godwin this page right now and direct you to the Nazi and Stalinist propaganda of last century. According to your perspective, I'm guessing that's A-OK to be mass distributed to the populace?

Don't be a gullible rube who swallows Uncle Tony's line about this being about protecting 'battlers'. He's never even MET one. This is about protecting extremely rich conservative media moguls who want complete freedom to produce sheer propaganda (above and beyond the current level) that supports an extremist right wing perspective.

You know, 'Fair and balanced'.