The raison d’etre of Orphans of Liberty in one Andrew Bolt article

Couldn’t resist, sorry, bringing this from downunder, from Andrew Bolt, on free speech – seems it’s an issue down there too.

From a speech in parliament:

What we have just heard from Senator Wong and what we have heard constantly from those opposite, including the Greens, relies on a profound misunderstanding of what our society is.

They seem to view our rights, particularly our right to speech and our right to discuss — our right to participate in democracy and in a free flow of ideas — as coming to us via a licence from politicians or judges. They seem to think that, somehow, the laws in this place determine what we are allowed and not allowed to say.

That is a profound misrepresentation of our constitutional and legal history. It is only in recent times that there have been such limits on things like speech. This is a profound fissure in what we view as the role of the state, and what we view as the role of the government and its relationship with the citizens of this country.

Senator Wong accused Senator Brandis of celebrating the rights of bigots. What I will say is that I condemn the bigot, but I celebrate the rights of every citizen.

And that is important, because a commitment to freedom of speech only really counts when it is tested. A commitment to freedom of speech only really counts when it comes to defending something you profoundly and viscerally disagree with—and that is where my commitment to free speech lies.

It continues here.

I’d go so far as to say that this is the raison d’etre of Orphans of Liberty.

[H/T Rossa’s mother]

2 comments for “The raison d’etre of Orphans of Liberty in one Andrew Bolt article

  1. Ian
    March 29, 2014 at 6:42 pm

    Good example of the decline of common law, Magna Carta etc based countries, as they become more like the quasi-fascist jus civilis jurisdictions of the continent.

  2. March 30, 2014 at 4:15 am

    The ‘intelligensia’ in Oz, subsidized by sinecures extracted from the Taxpayer, have very little ability to think. That lack is only bettered by their aptness for stupidity.

    Andrew Bolt also reports….

    (Bolt..) “But today The Age runs an opinion piece arguing just that point – that resisting racial division is itself racist.

    This is Orwell meeting Kafka.

    In it Waleed Aly argues against the Abbott Government’s proposal to reform the Racial Discrimination Act so comments are judged by the standards of the “ordinary reasonable member of the Australian community”:

    (Aly..) “”And what race is this hypothetical “ordinary reasonable member of the Australian community” meant to be, exactly? If you answered that they have no particular race, then you’ve just given the whitest answer possible. It’s the answer that assumes there is such a thing as racial neutrality. Of course, only white people have the chance to be neutral because in our society only white is deemed normal; only whiteness is invisible.””

    (Bolt…) “I’m astonished. Aly is arguing that those of us who say we should have a colour-blind view of the “ordinary reasonable member of the Australian community” are actually racist, blind to anyone not white themselves.

    We are “too white”, even if some of those holding this position are not white at all. Aly says we must instead see everyone not as individuals but representatives of some “race”.

    To judge people by their “race” or “whiteness” is now the only way not to be racist. “

Comments are closed.