the troubadour

No they shouldn't as community harmony should be prevalent unless in the greater interest. To be inciting racial violence for own self purposes should not be allowed. All members of a community regardless of race or religion have a duty allow freedom of expression and to go about their business without fear or advocating fear towards others.


Those that claim to represent freedom of course, offer no such thing, often quite the opposite, while of course meaning their interpretation of freedom at the expense of others.

Amazulu

Inciting violence should not be allowed - as I stated previously

Apart from a few other no-no's everyone should be allowed to say what they like

All out in the open Herman

the troubadour

That includes racial vilification of course which has every chance of inciting violence.


With so many rules and regulations in place anyway it is unlikely words alone will impact much beyond trouble makers that want to ignite community tensions or incite for own reasons.


You can call me Herman if it helps you in someway overcomes a need and tackles deep seated issues dwelling within, although for the life of me can't think why.

Amazulu

Herman the German - BE's voice from the fatherland

True freedom of speech should mean that you should be able to say what you like (apart from previous mention exceptions). We don't have true freedom of speech in Australia and many other western countries. America does. End of

BadgeIsBack

Absolutely the case. Australia was colonised or settled.

For an invasion to occur, the settlers would have needed to intentionally disembark with an act of war, literally guns blazing,to capture the bay. But there was no one to actually take the land from or engage with. The land belonged to no one other than a human nomadic tribe who would have seemingly have had no attachment to property or the slightest interest in maintaining it.

The true issue was what the colonists did in the name of humanity but we have to concede that was also by the standards of the day.

What happened in the 20th century was also poor : but again by the standards of the day..

Lion in Winter

Sure, but I think the issue bring discussed is how these acts should be understood now - not what some (not all) people thought then. The discussion as to what word to use is moot really. "Settlement" inherently involved the act of taking something that belonged to others, even if the people they took it from were not heavily armed nor given to war like the conquered in some other parts of the world.

The "they weren't using it properly" argument offered by colonial governments everywhere when they claim the land of others doesn't change the fact that there were people already in Australia and the acts of the British were not exactly designed for their benefit. The people already there when the British arrived most certainly were attached to the land, just not in the same way as Europeans, and they are still suffering the fallout of that arrival.

Colonisation |� Australians Together

BadgeIsBack

Good post : as a matter of fact, a big problem with debate is that if you disagree with the left you must be right wing, (and wrong) : freedom of speech does not apply : we see it in Universities and the like. A prescribed and correct left wing view is the only way and real debate is stifled. A problem with the left is that any other view is right wing or wrong : surely you can be a Left wing Nazi (I see I have invoked Godwin). And even if traditionally left wing means change etc, it's not always for the good : the right often has the tried and tested experience. I feel sorry for students on campus now.

Zulu has a point in fact perhaps the Left are a bit tiresome in the same way big business are tired.

Lion in Winter

To be sure there are idealogues everywhere, of every stripe.

But it is very boring and unproductive to simply attribute everything anyone says to being leftwing or right wing whether the opinions being expressed are anything to do with that or not. It's nonsense really.

To be honest, I don't really believe in the whole stifling of debate thing. When people complain about that, they usually mean that people are disagreeing with them and defending their views, or that an "official" position does not match theirs. And they are clearly not stifled, but are able to express themselves loud and clear. Freedom of speech does not mean others are not free to criticise. Quite the opposite, in fact.

BadgeIsBack

Still not an invasion. My country was invaded 1000 years ago and as a result there is a lot of French in the language and Norman castles. Thousands would have died many years after. No one has ever compensated the English. The Romans were more advanced too than the locals but I have still yet to receive my compo. Have the Jews received theirs?

Still, we do recognise the humanity of the situation : it's why there are so many movies, government welfare and policies, cultural and monetary to recognise the fact. History is full of the detritus of humanity : was there ever an apology for the way our ancestors were variously tortured, murdered and subjugated. One key difference of course is that humanity moved on : in leaps and bounds. Gravely our indigenous population didn't : so in some ways, the view 225 years ago was sort of valid : here was a different people who hadn't moved on, and continue to stagnate in some ways.

BadgeIsBack

Agree. I won't label left or right from now on. As I have alluded to, I am essentially socially conservative and politically moderate, even classic Liberal.

Agree that debate is stifled when someone disagrees, but we see it the most amongst the people who consider themselves progressive. Make no mistake if you were to seriously question, or demonstrate in the name of free speech, the established policy in a University setting you would probably be asked to leave : there is an official position such that dissent is not allowed. Overall, they have stifled debate in a final paradox and we are only just beginning to realise it. This whole business of what constitutes offence is ludicrous, for example.
On the one hand, if freedom of speech is curtailed in case someone feels hurt then that is a shame : we have criminal laws against incitement of hatred but we shouldn't expect our feelings to be protected. More latterly, this whole idea of safe rooms is curious, it is also illegal to discrimate on race but that is what is happening with safe rooms. Should you be able to sit in such a room and call the police if asked to leave?

BadgeIsBack

I actually think that Zulu is for legislation that prevents the most severe hatred or violence, he's said as much. The problem as I have touched on myself is that you need to define a line criminally hence my point about the difference between inciting for example violence and stating an opinion that might simply upset because it's different.

BadgeIsBack

Going back to the original question:
One of the biggest shocks I had was when I discovered at University I wasn't allowed an opinion and of course could only draw on texts. (Of course, this is just the mechanics of academia, I didn't have an issue once it was pointed out).

The problem is why there is even a need to talk about teaching invasion : would it still be a matter of debate? I expect a student arguing it wasn't an invasion might find themselves battling the faculty.

To go back to Left and Right : if traditionally the Right destroys and is negative then I do believe we are seeing the Left do the same (even by stealth): they destroyed capitalism, grammar schools, undermined standards etc

Oh to be a moderate!

wasss

What exactly is being skewed? Indigenous Australians who were murdered, raped and died of diseases is not considered an invasion? British people didn't just show up and live in peace with the natives.

Alfresco

Moved this to the Barbie.

spouse of scouse

Is this thread still going? Jeez, I settled it in the first reply