Quote:

The academics who hate free speech by John Speer April 16, 2013 The Labor Government’s recent abandonment of Senator Stephen Conroy’s proposed media-regulation laws has brought an end to the greatest assault on free speech in Australia yet attempted. However, the battle is nowhere near over and it rages on in the most trivial of places. For an an example of just how determined the left is to silence those with whom it disagrees, consider the  recent experience of the the Melbourne University Liberal Club. The MULC is a conservative student organisation that represents a clear minority in the political ecosystem that prevails on campus. Whilst not being directly affiliated with the Liberal Party, the club has adhered to and promoted the values of liberalism since 1925. In the University of Melbourne’s Orientation Week in February of 2013, the MULC did as it has always done, and set about promoting itself to attract new members. Oriaentation Week has traditionally been our biggest recruitment drive of the year. In addition to manning our allocated booth at the Clubs & Societies Expo, we also set up a number of stalls around the Parkville campus. These stalls are generally decorated with various Liberal Party corflutes, publications, stickers, and various other promotional giveaways. This year one of the corflutes, kindly donated to us, originated from the 2001 federal election campaign. This particular corflute pictured then-Prime Minister John Howard and his quote “we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.” On one particular day of O-Week, The Club displayed this corflute proudly at our stall, a reminder of one of the Howard government’s most successful and successful policies. Within minutes of displaying this corflute, members of the MULC were approached by university academics who believed it to be was ‘racist’ and ‘disgusting’. In addition to this, they insisted we had no right whatsoever to display it at our stall. Senior members of The Club explained that whilst they were free to hold those opinions, we were perfectly within our rights to voice our own beliefs and display a piece of official election material. With the debate ending rather quickly, our stall was soon approached by the University of Melbourne’s security staff, who stated they had received “complaints” about the corflute. They then ordered the MULC booth off campus. After it was explained that all present were both MULC members and students of the university,  thus having a right to be present on university grounds, the security staff then attempted to remove the corflute from the grounds of the university. Upon members reminding them that the corflute was a member of The Club’s own private property, they placed it back on the stall. In a desire not to inflame the situation, MULC members transported the stall off campus and onto public property in order to continue our membership drive. Whilst this incident may seem trivial, it typifies the difficulties and harassment experienced by conservative and libertarian student organisations. The mentality of the left in the practice of freedom of speech, equating to “I don’t want to see it therefore it can’t be displayed”, is arrogant and abusive. We might also call it absurd, if not for the chilling glimpse of the totalitarian mindset determined to crimp and control all conversation and thought on campus. And remember, it was not left students who complained about our display but academics, who should be dedicated to the free and unfettered discussion and dissection of ideas. Not only do such attempts to gag fly in the face of the right to free speech and freedom of expression,  they demonstrate the unwillingness of the left on campus, and generally everywhere, to adhere to the basic principles of democracy. I am drawn to a quote from Voltaire’s biographer, Evelyn Beatrice Hall, and often attributed in error to the philosopher himself. It is this: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Whilst the fight for freedom of expression and speech may be at a temporary ceasefire in Canberra, it continues to escalate in the tertiary institutions of this nation.

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/qed/2013/04/the-academics-who-hate-free-speech

It is interesting this attempt to silence came from academics and not students.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 11:14pm:

It is interesting this attempt to silence came from academics and not students.

if you've ever worked in a university you would know that it is THE left-wing organization in the country. A friend of mine who worked in a uni was reprimanded for having a picture of Howard in his cubicle. Pictures of Keating however were acceptable.

But just as when people get older and wiser they abandon left-wing silliness so do students when they leave the rarefied air of universities. The academics however never leave, never work in the real world and thus stay entrenched in their left-wing world where 'free speech' is a concept that applies the them but not everyone else.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 11:42pm:

if you've ever worked in a university ...

That's unfair.

Mistie works in a University; we all know that.

http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/janitor.jpg

Moreover, he does a fine job.

He has an honorary doctorate you know.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 11:14pm:

It is interesting this attempt to silence came from academics and not students.

Universities are supposed to be places of learning. Having said that, something like "we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come" is open to interpretation and its meaning is debatable.

I think the academics' response was one of fear, that by allowing the club to show their items to the people on the campus, they were effectively agreeing with what had been written on them. That just isn't my interpretation. Universities being places of learning and evolution of ideas, allowing such items to exist on campus didn't mean you were condoning, supporting or advocating them. You could just walk past and ignore them, showing no interest.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 11:42pm:

if you've ever worked in a university you would know that it is THE left-wing organization in the country.

You're assuming there aren't any "fatcats" in universities. I am pretty sure academics who teach commerce or economics courses would be pretty right-wing, as anyone interested in running businesses and wants to make money would be. There's also the academics teaching law and you know how lawyers like to get rich by charging you lots of legal fees. It's amazing how a piece of paper with writing on it can earn you $10k-$100k. Lawyers love manipulating the world to make themselves richer and I doubt they're going to leave the money to the homeless. There you have it. Here are your right-wingers in universities.


longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 11:42pm:

A friend of mine who worked in a uni was reprimanded for having a picture of Howard in his cubicle. Pictures of Keating however were acceptable.

You're basing your claim on the experience of a friend? Whoever said that to your friend was expressing their opinion and yet you assume they represent the entire university.


longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 11:42pm:

But just as when people get older and wiser they abandon left-wing silliness so do students when they leave the rarefied air of universities.

That wasn't my experience. For me it was the other way round. While I was at university, I was too busy studying to care about what was happening in the rest of the world. Nothing else mattered except assignments, exams and marks and the pride I got when I handed in great work and got good marks. I was too interested in my own success to care about anything else (a right-wing attitude). Not all students care about politics.

Finishing my studies and leaving university was like taking off my rose-coloured glasses. I looked at the world around me and saw imperfection. Life wasn't as simple as getting the right answer on the exam. I realised I was a pretty lucky guy to be studying at university and free of debt. A lot of other people weren't so lucky, many of them having to borrow money to study. The reason why I was free of debt was because my family was free of debt. My parents paid off their mortgage a long, long time ago. My parents could afford to support me in my studies and I was a good saver.

I realised that if you came from a family who owned a home where the mortgage still hadn't been paid off, it was likely that the next generation would be facing the same problem. There was therefore a hierarchy. Below me were people having financial difficulties because of the failure to pay off their mortgage. Above me were people earning $100k or above who weren't willing to share the extra money they earned. These people were living "above their means." They had money they didn't need.

Successful people become blind to the hardships of people below them and continue accumulating wealth without caring. If I hadn't been struck down by a medical condition, I probably would have ended up with right-wing views. I have been blinded by my success once before and I don't intend to let that happen again. The reason why I am not a right-winger is because I am not a heartless person who doesn't have a penny to spare.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 11:42pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 16th, 2013 at 11:14pm: It is interesting this attempt to silence came from academics and not students. if you've ever worked in a university you would know that it is THE left-wing organization in the country. A friend of mine who worked in a uni was reprimanded for having a picture of Howard in his cubicle. Pictures of Keating however were acceptable. But just as when people get older and wiser they abandon left-wing silliness so do students when they leave the rarefied air of universities. The academics however never leave, never work in the real world and thus stay entrenched in their left-wing world where 'free speech' is a concept that applies the them but not everyone else.

That is BS.

SOB

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 11:42pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 16th, 2013 at 11:14pm: It is interesting this attempt to silence came from academics and not students. if you've ever worked in a university you would know that it is THE left-wing organization in the country. A friend of mine who worked in a uni was reprimanded for having a picture of Howard in his cubicle. Pictures of Keating however were acceptable. But just as when people get older and wiser they abandon left-wing silliness so do students when they leave the rarefied air of universities. The academics however never leave, never work in the real world and thus stay entrenched in their left-wing world where 'free speech' is a concept that applies the them but not everyone else.

Yep. The academics are often more extreme than the students. I found intolerant students to actually be in the minority. The "socialist Alliance" are a minority group on campus that most other students poke fun at.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 11:42pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 16th, 2013 at 11:14pm: It is interesting this attempt to silence came from academics and not students. if you've ever worked in a university you would know that it is THE left-wing organization in the country. A friend of mine who worked in a uni was reprimanded for having a picture of Howard in his cubicle. Pictures of Keating however were acceptable.

You have never been in a Medical, legal, economics etc type campus have you.

I think that the campus over reacted even though I do find Mr Howards picture and comments to be quite offensive.

Mnemonic wrote on Apr 17^th, 2013 at 1:41am:

You're assuming there aren't any "fatcats" in universities. I am pretty sure academics who teach commerce or economics courses would be pretty right-wing, as anyone interested in running businesses and wants to make money would be. There's also the academics teaching law and you know how lawyers like to get rich by charging you lots of legal fees. It's amazing how a piece of paper with writing on it can earn you $10k-$100k. Lawyers love manipulating the world to make themselves richer and I doubt they're going to leave the money to the homeless. There you have it. Here are your right-wingers in universities.

I agree that the business and marketing disciplines tend to produce right-wingers (in the business sense; not sure about the conservative sense). But I'd disagree on the law graduates.There are plenty of lawyers who flock to civil libertarian causes, Human Rights causes, and become asylum seeker protectors. Usually, though, they carry the same manipulative "gene" that other lawyer types possess. Take our friend GregPeccory (he has a law degree apparently). He jumps to the aid of asylum seekers at every opportunity; almost having an emotional meltdown when some one speaks about them disparagingly. But regularly lambastes common Australian folk; he was even ridiculing disabled children the other day. He's your typical left-wing: A hater of Australians, but a lover of the foreigner. And he's a product of our tertiary system.

This hypocrisy is what the op points out. And it's very commonly done by academics. I wouldn't single out the empirical sciences, though. They need empirical results to justify their positions - controlled experiments that can be fact-checked. But in the soft sciences, there is little empirical data used. It's often just personal, political ambition, shrouded in textual analysis and confident self-posturing. The opinion of others is rarely on their mind; unless of course it is in support of their position.

But just as when people get older and wiser they abandon left-wing silliness so do students

I seem to have gone the other way but that may have just been a responce to the Howard dishonesty.

Could be just that as people gain wealth that what is in their personal best interests change.

Bigotry is endemic in our society, imo.

Nowhere more so, than in what we call 'the halls of academia', imo.


Dictionary;
bigot = = a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others.

Bigots, are those people who are,
".....intolerant of the opinions of others."






Are we an 'open', 'tolerant', society ???

Open to what ?

Tolerant to what ?

Perversity, proffering itself as diversity ?




THE TRUTH IS THAT;
We have become a society where political options which do not align with current mainstream political views cannot be [must not! be even] debated or explored.

We have become a society where free and open debate [exploration], of any political option which is not a part of current mainstream political views is [out of hand] considered bizarre or unhealthy, when the opposite is often true.



Personally, i blame the teachers [educators] of our children.

What sort of [moral] values have teachers [over past decades!] been teaching the children of our society ?

What sort of critical thinking skills have teachers been teaching, imbuing the children of our society with ?

Virtually none, imo.

Why have many our children come to a view, a worldview of life, which opposes allowing anyone who does not share their own worldview, to even express a differing opinion to themselves ?

Very few of our children seem to be able to see the logic, and the real value to an open society [and to a society which hopes to be free!], of open and free debate with others, to explore issues and ideas.

Nor do they see the value of allowing others to challenge their own views [their own worldviews] with logical [critical] thinking.


+++


CONSIDER;

Q.
How is it possible to reason with a person [or a group], when in the first instance, that person [or group] objects to you even expressing your position [because your position, is not his/her own position!] ?
[n.b. this is precisely the same immoral and unreasoning 'mechanism' whereby ISLAM/moslems stifle the exploration of ideas, which may expose ISLAM to yet more criticism!]

Q.
How is it possible to explore [intellectually, in debate] any 'position' of logic or fact, when one side tells the other party, that they may not [are not permitted! to] express a view [to explore] ?        [and again, this is precisely the position taken by fundamentalist moslems!]



Dictionary;
reason = =
1 think, understand, and form judgements logically.    (reason something out) find a solution to a problem by considering possible options.
2 persuade with rational argument.


+++



Quote:

American colleges and universities are hothouses of hypocrisy,    and the principal exhibit is that while their spokesmen talk    endlessly about their commitment to openness, tolerance,    critical thinking, diversity, and so on, many of them have    adopted policies designed to stifle the expression of unpopular    sentiments and empower certain groups to punish others for    having the temerity to speak their minds.

     George C. Leef

Howard's slogan was pure dog whistle, but the MULC had a right to display it. They should have stood their ground.

Dnarever wrote on Apr 17^th, 2013 at 8:45am:

But just as when people get older and wiser they abandon left-wing silliness so do students I seem to have gone the other way but that may have just been a responce to the Howard dishonesty. Could be just that as people gain wealth that what is in their personal best interests change.

yet you go with gillard...nothing more dishonest than she... oh well its all in the mind as they say..

what offends one pleases another.. funny old world...


what is your ideal labor party dna.... do they really stand for what you believe in?

we all know what happened in the British Universities during the 20s and 30s..shame MI5 didnt...

cods wrote on Apr 17^th, 2013 at 9:39am:

Dnarever wrote on Apr 17th, 2013 at 8:45am: But just as when people get older and wiser they abandon left-wing silliness so do students I seem to have gone the other way but that may have just been a responce to the Howard dishonesty. Could be just that as people gain wealth that what is in their personal best interests change. yet you go with gillard...nothing more dishonest than she... oh well its all in the mind as they say.. what offends one pleases another.. funny old world... what is your ideal labor party dna.... do they really stand for what you believe in?

cods, this topic is about free speech at a university. It has nothing to do with Gillard.

cods wrote on Apr 17^th, 2013 at 9:41am:

we all know what happened in the British Universities during the 20s and 30s..shame MI5 didnt...

And what the f-ck has THAT got to do with this topic?

Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 17^th, 2013 at 9:45am:

cods wrote on Apr 17th, 2013 at 9:41am: we all know what happened in the British Universities during the 20s and 30s..shame MI5 didnt... And what the f-ck has THAT got to do with this topic?

Well, they were apparently hotbeds (pun unintended) of homosexuality and
Communism, and produced some of Britain's most famous traitors.

Perhaps Cods believes our unis are the same.... ;)

cods wrote on Apr 17^th, 2013 at 9:39am:

Dnarever wrote on Apr 17th, 2013 at 8:45am: But just as when people get older and wiser they abandon left-wing silliness so do students I seem to have gone the other way but that may have just been a responce to the Howard dishonesty. Could be just that as people gain wealth that what is in their personal best interests change. yet you go with gillard...nothing more dishonest than she... oh well its all in the mind as they say.. what offends one pleases another.. funny old world... what is your ideal labor party dna.... do they really stand for what you believe in?

nothing more dishonest than she

The spin about Gillard’s dishonesty is just that, it is based on the proposition that she told one lie, in reality she had inadvertently broken a promise which had little impact, compared to Howard who took a lie into every election campaign and had many between it is clearly no contest, Even Abbot tell more pork pies than Gillard.

Kat wrote on Apr 17^th, 2013 at 10:17am:

Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 17th, 2013 at 9:45am: cods wrote on Apr 17th, 2013 at 9:41am: we all know what happened in the British Universities during the 20s and 30s..shame MI5 didnt... And what the f-ck has THAT got to do with this topic? Well, they were apparently hotbeds (pun unintended) of homosexuality and Communism, and produced some of Britain's most famous traitors. Perhaps Cods believes our unis are the same.... ;)

I am not sure you'd call it today a hotbed of homosexuality, but there are gays and lesbians throughout the Humanities and Social Sciences. There's a whole sub-discipline of literature devoted to them. Often it takes the form of pointing out the plainness of the "heteronormative" world, and that gays and lesbians are "different" and hold the key to "diversifying" this "boring" world.

cods wrote on Apr 17^th, 2013 at 9:39am:

Dnarever wrote on Apr 17th, 2013 at 8:45am: But just as when people get older and wiser they abandon left-wing silliness so do students I seem to have gone the other way but that may have just been a responce to the Howard dishonesty. Could be just that as people gain wealth that what is in their personal best interests change. yet you go with gillard...nothing more dishonest than she... oh well its all in the mind as they say.. what offends one pleases another.. funny old world... what is your ideal labor party dna.... do they really stand for what you believe in?

It is more a case of the conservatives standing for what I don't believe in.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 17^th, 2013 at 10:40am:

Kat wrote on Apr 17th, 2013 at 10:17am: Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 17th, 2013 at 9:45am: cods wrote on Apr 17th, 2013 at 9:41am: we all know what happened in the British Universities during the 20s and 30s..shame MI5 didnt... And what the f-ck has THAT got to do with this topic? Well, they were apparently hotbeds (pun unintended) of homosexuality and Communism, and produced some of Britain's most famous traitors. Perhaps Cods believes our unis are the same.... ;) I am not sure you'd call it today a hotbed of homosexuality, but there are gays and lesbians throughout the Humanities and Social Sciences. There's a whole sub-discipline of literature devoted to them. Often it takes the form of pointing out the plainness of the "heteronormative" world, and that gays and lesbians are "different" and hold the key to "diversifying" this "boring" world.

I think that's what you call freedom of speech.....

Mnemonic wrote on Apr 17^th, 2013 at 1:41am:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16th, 2013 at 11:42pm: if you've ever worked in a university you would know that it is THE left-wing organization in the country. You're assuming there aren't any "fatcats" in universities. I am pretty sure academics who teach commerce or economics courses would be pretty right-wing, as anyone interested in running businesses and wants to make money would be. There's also the academics teaching law and you know how lawyers like to get rich by charging you lots of legal fees. It's amazing how a piece of paper with writing on it can earn you $10k-$100k. Lawyers love manipulating the world to make themselves richer and I doubt they're going to leave the money to the homeless. There you have it. Here are your right-wingers in universities. longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16th, 2013 at 11:42pm: A friend of mine who worked in a uni was reprimanded for having a picture of Howard in his cubicle. Pictures of Keating however were acceptable. You're basing your claim on the experience of a friend? Whoever said that to your friend was expressing their opinion and yet you assume they represent the entire university. longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16th, 2013 at 11:42pm: But just as when people get older and wiser they abandon left-wing silliness so do students when they leave the rarefied air of universities. That wasn't my experience. For me it was the other way round. While I was at university, I was too busy studying to care about what was happening in the rest of the world. Nothing else mattered except assignments, exams and marks and the pride I got when I handed in great work and got good marks. I was too interested in my own success to care about anything else (a right-wing attitude). Not all students care about politics. Finishing my studies and leaving university was like taking off my rose-coloured glasses. I looked at the world around me and saw imperfection. Life wasn't as simple as getting the right answer on the exam. I realised I was a pretty lucky guy to be studying at university and free of debt. A lot of other people weren't so lucky, many of them having to borrow money to study. The reason why I was free of debt was because my family was free of debt. My parents paid off their mortgage a long, long time ago. My parents could afford to support me in my studies and I was a good saver. I realised that if you came from a family who owned a home where the mortgage still hadn't been paid off, it was likely that the next generation would be facing the same problem. There was therefore a hierarchy. Below me were people having financial difficulties because of the failure to pay off their mortgage. Above me were people earning $100k or above who weren't willing to share the extra money they earned. These people were living "above their means." They had money they didn't need. Successful people become blind to the hardships of people below them and continue accumulating wealth without caring. If I hadn't been struck down by a medical condition, I probably would have ended up with right-wing views. I have been blinded by my success once before and I don't intend to let that happen again. The reason why I am not a right-winger is because I am not a heartless person who doesn't have a penny to spare.

so you claim my position is invalid because it is my personal experience and then use as proof, your own experience???

well that gave me a good chuckle!

Dnarever wrote on Apr 17^th, 2013 at 8:38am:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16th, 2013 at 11:42pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 16th, 2013 at 11:14pm: It is interesting this attempt to silence came from academics and not students. if you've ever worked in a university you would know that it is THE left-wing organization in the country. A friend of mine who worked in a uni was reprimanded for having a picture of Howard in his cubicle. Pictures of Keating however were acceptable. You have never been in a Medical, legal, economics etc type campus have you.

very very obviously you never have!!!!

Dnarever wrote on Apr 17^th, 2013 at 8:41am:

I think that the campus over reacted even though I do find Mr Howards picture and comments to be quite offensive.

it is of no concern that YOU find it offensive. free speech and the free expression of ideas is supposed to be the lifeblood of universities. Instead, we get this kind of censorship/

Dnarever wrote on Apr 17^th, 2013 at 10:23am:

cods wrote on Apr 17th, 2013 at 9:39am: Dnarever wrote on Apr 17th, 2013 at 8:45am: But just as when people get older and wiser they abandon left-wing silliness so do students I seem to have gone the other way but that may have just been a responce to the Howard dishonesty. Could be just that as people gain wealth that what is in their personal best interests change. yet you go with gillard...nothing more dishonest than she... oh well its all in the mind as they say.. what offends one pleases another.. funny old world... what is your ideal labor party dna.... do they really stand for what you believe in? nothing more dishonest than she The spin about Gillard’s dishonesty is just that, it is based on the proposition that she told one lie, in reality she had inadvertently broken a promise which had little impact, compared to Howard who took a lie into every election campaign and had many between it is clearly no contest, Even Abbot tell more pork pies than Gillard.

and 29% of the country agrees with you while 71% are looking forward to ditching her into obscurity.

Quote:

This particular corflute pictured then-Prime Minister John Howard and his quote “we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.” On one particular day of O-Week, The Club displayed this corflute proudly at our stall

My opinion on this is that "context" is very important.

We all know the context in which John Howard said this quote. It was during the Tampa stand off, which at the time was front page news.

On the other hand we have a group of conservative students with this placard in the midst of a ethnically and culturally diverse university campus. In this context it could easily be seen to be potentially racist.

As much as the right like to play the victim I don't think this was a case of left v right. This was just a case of academics defusing a potentially dangerous situation. Which they have every right to do.

bugger me dnaver, you claim otherwise but youre a naked partisan fvking hack. you are a joke son

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 11:42pm:

But just as when people get older and wiser they abandon left-wing silliness so do students when they leave the rarefied air of universities.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 17^th, 2013 at 5:59pm:

so you claim my position is invalid because it is my personal experience and then use as proof, your own experience???

Your position is that as people get older and wiser, they become more right-wing. Firstly, my experience doesn't support your position. In fact, as I described, I became disgusted with right-wing views. Secondly, it's a bit silly talking about "proof" when you haven't presented any for your own claim. It is fine with me, however, if you just wanted to say that for fun.

I wasn't even out of prove you wrong. Many of the left-wingers in universities may indeed be youthful idealists, but that doesn't mean all left-wing ideology was about being young and idealistic. I am no idealist. In fact, it's the other way round. I am a realist and I consider right-wing ideology to be unrealistic. I don't worship ideals and I agree that a lot of the ideas put forward by youthful left-wing idealists are silly, but so are a lot of right-wing ideas.

I think your belief that all left-wingers are youthful idealists is wishful thinking. No doubt, the idea excites you. How great it would be if all left-wingers were youthful idealists who grew up and realised their ideas were stupid, that they took off their rose-coloured glasses. Well, here is my advice to you. Why don't you take off your rose-coloured glasses and realise the world isn't that simple?

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 18^th, 2013 at 9:38pm:

Quote: This particular corflute pictured then-Prime Minister John Howard and his quote “we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.” On one particular day of O-Week, The Club displayed this corflute proudly at our stall My opinion on this is that "context" is very important. We all know the context in which John Howard said this quote. It was during the Tampa stand off, which at the time was front page news. On the other hand we have a group of conservative students with this placard in the midst of a ethnically and culturally diverse university campus. In this context it could easily be seen to be potentially racist. As much as the right like to play the victim I don't think this was a case of left v right. This was just a case of academics defusing a potentially dangerous situation. Which they have every right to do.

It could have prompted robust debate. Deciding who comes into the country and under what circumstances is a legitimate topic for discussion.

Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 17^th, 2013 at 12:14pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 17th, 2013 at 10:40am: Kat wrote on Apr 17th, 2013 at 10:17am: Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 17th, 2013 at 9:45am: cods wrote on Apr 17th, 2013 at 9:41am: we all know what happened in the British Universities during the 20s and 30s..shame MI5 didnt... And what the f-ck has THAT got to do with this topic? Well, they were apparently hotbeds (pun unintended) of homosexuality and Communism, and produced some of Britain's most famous traitors. Perhaps Cods believes our unis are the same.... ;) I am not sure you'd call it today a hotbed of homosexuality, but there are gays and lesbians throughout the Humanities and Social Sciences. There's a whole sub-discipline of literature devoted to them. Often it takes the form of pointing out the plainness of the "heteronormative" world, and that gays and lesbians are "different" and hold the key to "diversifying" this "boring" world. I think that's what you call freedom of speech.....

Yes, but what do you call the suppression of opposing ideas?

I am not even sure you could call academic journals free speech considering that the subject matter is peer-reviewed. A panel of "experts" decide what is deemed worthy of being published.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 11:42pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 16th, 2013 at 11:14pm: It is interesting this attempt to silence came from academics and not students. The academics however never leave, never work in the real world and thus stay entrenched in their left-wing world where 'free speech' is a concept that applies the them but not everyone else.

Most academics devote their lives to contributing to their field of expertise. Living in a country such as ours, you benefit from the hard work of academics every day - whatever their political persuasion.

One of the first concepts that university students learn is critical thinking and they are encouraged to question everything. In every tutorial I have attended, there have been opposing viewpoints.

Mnemonic wrote on Apr 17^th, 2013 at 12:59am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 16th, 2013 at 11:14pm: It is interesting this attempt to silence came from academics and not students. Universities are supposed to be places of learning. Having said that, something like "we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come" is open to interpretation and its meaning is debatable. I think the academics' response was one of fear, that by allowing the club to show their items to the people on the campus, they were effectively agreeing with what had been written on them. That just isn't my interpretation. Universities being places of learning and evolution of ideas, allowing such items to exist on campus didn't mean you were condoning, supporting or advocating them. You could just walk past and ignore them, showing no interest.

I don't think the reaction was based on fear. It was probably motivated by the need to promote an environment where students feel safe which is vital for learning.

"We will decide who comes into our country." Such a stupid, unnecessary statement - particularly in an educational setting. "We" do decide already.

Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 17^th, 2013 at 9:21am:

Howard's slogan was pure dog whistle, but the MULC had a right to display it. They should have stood their ground.

And the academics had a right to object and complain, which is what they did.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 19^th, 2013 at 9:08am:

I am not even sure you could call academic journals free speech considering that the subject matter is peer-reviewed. A panel of "experts" decide what is deemed worthy of being published.

Do you have a better way of filtering the masses of articles that are submitted for publication? Should journals just be a free for all that include studies with unreliable and invalid results?

Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 19^th, 2013 at 10:50am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 19th, 2013 at 9:08am: I am not even sure you could call academic journals free speech considering that the subject matter is peer-reviewed. A panel of "experts" decide what is deemed worthy of being published. Do you have a better way of filtering the masses of articles that are submitted for publication? Should journals just be a free for all that include studies with unreliable and invalid results?

In the context of what I was replying to - Freedman's claim of free speech - academic journals don't come under that criteria. So, no, I don't believe journals should be a free for all.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 19^th, 2013 at 10:46am:

Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 17th, 2013 at 9:21am: Howard's slogan was pure dog whistle, but the MULC had a right to display it. They should have stood their ground. And the academics had a right to object and complain, which is what they did.

Would it be acceptable to eject other political groups with offensive slogans?

Although there was an attempt at an eviction, it failed. Ultimately, the MULC students chose to leave of their own accord. For what it's worth, I don't support what the security staff did, but they are at fault - not the academics.

You are involved in academia, I believe. Have you ever felt silenced with regards to your beliefs or pressure to conform?

If efnics express opposition to anything Australian = freedom of speech.
If Australians express opposition to anything efnic = racism.

Please explain.

What a conundrum for new Australians then.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 19^th, 2013 at 11:16am:

Although there was an attempt at an eviction, it failed. Ultimately, the MULC students chose to leave of their own accord. For what it's worth, I don't support what the security staff did, but they are at fault - not the academics. You are involved in academia, I believe. Have you ever felt silenced with regards to your beliefs or pressure to conform?

Many times. Lost count.

The place isn't a bastion of free speech. It's a hotbed of political ideas vying for power.

Okay. That shouldn't have happened. My experience has been different, but my studies have been far shorter than yours - though probably broader.

I remember an essay I had to write where I asked to argue in opposition to what we had been taught in the course. The convenor said that was fine as long as I could support my argument with strong evidence. I got a HD, so was in no way penalised for not adhering to the accepted line of thought.

I am not arguing that the social sciences are not strongly geared to the left - I agree that they are. But the very nature of university study is primarily independent - students must seek knowledge beyond what is given in lectures, tutes and course readings for every assignment.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 19^th, 2013 at 11:58am:

Okay. That shouldn't have happened. My experience has been different, but my studies have been far shorter than yours - though probably broader. I remember an essay I had to write where I asked to argue in opposition to what we had been taught in the course. The convenor said that was fine as long as I could support my argument with strong evidence. I got a HD, so was in no way penalised for not adhering to the accepted line of thought. I am not arguing that the social sciences are not strongly geared to the left - I agree that they are. But the very nature of university study is primarily independent - students must seek knowledge beyond what is given in lectures, tutes and course readings for every assignment.

This is right as far as it goes.
There is no questioning, let alone opposition to multiculturalism, to cultural relativism, to post-modern relativising of all sorts. Not because there are no publications and books opposing these intellectual currents but because such books and journals are not on any of the university reading lists.

Your example is subtly telling: you were taught a certain line and were expressly asked to argue against the entire outlook of the semester's material.

Quote:

One of the first concepts that university students learn is critical thinking and they are encouraged to question everything.

heh.

Soren wrote on Apr 19^th, 2013 at 4:59pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 19th, 2013 at 11:58am: Okay. That shouldn't have happened. My experience has been different, but my studies have been far shorter than yours - though probably broader. I remember an essay I had to write where I asked to argue in opposition to what we had been taught in the course. The convenor said that was fine as long as I could support my argument with strong evidence. I got a HD, so was in no way penalised for not adhering to the accepted line of thought. I am not arguing that the social sciences are not strongly geared to the left - I agree that they are. But the very nature of university study is primarily independent - students must seek knowledge beyond what is given in lectures, tutes and course readings for every assignment. This is right as far as it goes. There is no questioning, let alone opposition to multiculturalism, to cultural relativism, to post-modern relativising of all sorts. Not because there are no publications and books opposing these intellectual currents but because such books and journals are not on any of the university reading lists.

When I was studying arts, all of these things were introduced in some way and they were open to discussion. An example that springs immediately to mind is Seasons of Migration to the North by Salih. I'm not sure if you've read it, but it's nothing if not a slam on multiculturalism and the difficulties of assimilation.


Soren wrote on Apr 19^th, 2013 at 4:59pm:

Your example is subtly telling: you were taught a certain line and were expressly asked to argue against the entire outlook of the semester's material.

No. t was me that asked. It was an essay on the manner in which Lurie in Coetzee's post-aparthieid novel Disgrace had found redemption. I didn't (and don't) believe he had so I asked to argue that instead. My convenor was surprised, but made no attempt to change my mind and marked me fairly.


My point is, it is the responsibility of students to research thoroughly. This includes finding information, making sense of it and refuting it with evidence if they don't agree with it.

I'm studying psych now and it's a completely different teaching/learning style. That's why I made the distinction about humanities before. I can't think of a single thing that I've learnt in my psychology studies that has been geared toward either political direction.

I am very, very glad of your forthright defence of the breadth and independence of your studies.
You have my best wishes.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 19^th, 2013 at 10:46am:

Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 17th, 2013 at 9:21am: Howard's slogan was pure dog whistle, but the MULC had a right to display it. They should have stood their ground. And the academics had a right to object and complain, which is what they did.

Yep, quite agree. And the students had the to tell them, very respectfully to f- off.

Rather than stand their ground, they slunk off. Gutless wonders.

Soren wrote on Apr 19^th, 2013 at 8:19pm:

I am very, very glad of your forthright defence of the breadth and independence of your studies. You have my best wishes.

Did I sound like a wanker? Didn't mean to. Just trying to make my point.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 19^th, 2013 at 8:25pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 19th, 2013 at 8:19pm: I am very, very glad of your forthright defence of the breadth and independence of your studies. You have my best wishes. Did I sound like a wanker? Didn't mean to. Just trying to make my point.

Don't be such a neurotic lefty. I meant what I said. I am not a POMO relativiser like Karnal. I am really glad. I really do wish you well.

Oh. Then thank you. I appreciate it.

Soren wrote on Apr 19^th, 2013 at 11:23am:

If efnics express opposition to anything Australian = freedom of speech. If Australians express opposition to anything efnic = racism. Please explain.

I want answers.

Soren wrote on Apr 19^th, 2013 at 8:49pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 19th, 2013 at 11:23am: If efnics express opposition to anything Australian = freedom of speech. If Australians express opposition to anything efnic = racism. Please explain. I want answers.

Frank, forthright, guileless, answers ?


"Tell him; He's dreaming."

Soren wrote on Apr 19^th, 2013 at 11:23am:

If efnics express opposition to anything Australian = freedom of speech. If Australians express opposition to anything efnic = racism. Please explain.

I assume that you define

Ethnics: English, Scottish, Irish, Spanish. Italan, Chinese, Russian, Greek, Chilean etc

Australian: Indigenous peoples of this land who have occupied this land for over 50,000 years

(which kind of makes your statement impotent and utterly ridiculous)

It makes your assumption utterly ridiculous.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 19^th, 2013 at 9:47pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 19th, 2013 at 11:23am: If efnics express opposition to anything Australian = freedom of speech. If Australians express opposition to anything efnic = racism. Please explain. I assume that you define Ethnics: English, Scottish, Irish, Spanish. Italan, Chinese, Russian, Greek, Chilean etc Australian: Indigenous peoples of this land who have occupied this land for over 50,000 years (which kind of makes your statement impotent and utterly ridiculous)

I assume that you are godawful fvcken moron.

Am I wrong?

No.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 19^th, 2013 at 9:47pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 19th, 2013 at 11:23am: If efnics express opposition to anything Australian = freedom of speech. If Australians express opposition to anything efnic = racism. Please explain. I assume that you define Ethnics: English, Scottish, Irish, Spanish. Italan, Chinese, Russian, Greek, Chilean etc Australian: Indigenous peoples of this land who have occupied this land for over 50,000 years (which kind of makes your statement impotent and utterly ridiculous)

You left out cheese-fanciers, of which the old boy is one. These people come to this country, send their kids off to school with pickles and rollmops, dance around their inscrutable pagan maypoles in their silly trousers, and pretend to be normal.

Meanwhile, they spy on you putting your bins out, measure your parking from the kerb, and set their sprinklers to start up just when you walk past.

I’m not racist - some of my best friends are cheese-dealers - but I do find them to be frightful bores.

Still, I really do wish them well.

Don’t you?

Kat wrote on Apr 17^th, 2013 at 10:17am:

Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 17th, 2013 at 9:45am: cods wrote on Apr 17th, 2013 at 9:41am: we all know what happened in the British Universities during the 20s and 30s..shame MI5 didnt... And what the f-ck has THAT got to do with this topic? Well, they were apparently hotbeds (pun unintended) of homosexuality and Communism, and produced some of Britain's most famous traitors. Perhaps Cods believes our unis are the same.... ;)

Actually in the 20's and 30's they were hotbeds of nazism. Certainly there were some communists who went on to be traitors but don't get fooled into believing they were in the majority.

Nothing wrong with hotbeds of Nazis, Grey. Just between you and me, some of our best friends here are collaborators.

Live and let live, I say. Viva la differance. Me, I’m a pragmatist.

We do what we have to do to survive. Or complain about other’s surviving. Or shafting the one on the rung below to feel more secure - or just because you can, or just because it feels right.

It’s a rich tapestry of human life. Innit.

Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 19^th, 2013 at 8:19pm:

Yep, quite agree. And the students had the to tell them, very respectfully to f- off. Rather than stand their ground, they slunk off. Gutless wonders.

I invite them to go back and do it again, regardless of whether I agree with their views.

Soren wrote on Apr 19^th, 2013 at 8:49pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 19th, 2013 at 11:23am: If efnics express opposition to anything Australian = freedom of speech. If Australians express opposition to anything efnic = racism. Please explain. I want answers.

Well Soren, when I see the crap posted by the Right I have the opposite dilemma

attack the rights of ethnics, minority groups = freedom of speech

defend these peoples rights = unaustralian terrorist supporter

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 20^th, 2013 at 11:33am:

Soren wrote on Apr 19th, 2013 at 8:49pm: Soren wrote on Apr 19th, 2013 at 11:23am: If efnics express opposition to anything Australian = freedom of speech. If Australians express opposition to anything efnic = racism. Please explain. I want answers. Well Soren, when I see the crap posted by the Right I have the opposite dilemma attack the rights of ethnics, minority groups = freedom of speech defend these peoples rights = unaustralian terrorist supporter

I think the confusion stems from a failure to distinguish "rights" from 'wants".

... wrote on Apr 20^th, 2013 at 11:34am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 20th, 2013 at 11:33am: Soren wrote on Apr 19th, 2013 at 8:49pm: Soren wrote on Apr 19th, 2013 at 11:23am: If efnics express opposition to anything Australian = freedom of speech. If Australians express opposition to anything efnic = racism. Please explain. I want answers. Well Soren, when I see the crap posted by the Right I have the opposite dilemma attack the rights of ethnics, minority groups = freedom of speech defend these peoples rights = unaustralian terrorist supporter I think the confusion stems from a failure to distinguish "rights" from 'wants".

No it doesn't. We have a thread by sprintcyclist advocating sterilisation of people who haven't learned "Australian" (sic) within 2 years of arriving here. We have other thread calling for the banning of people who adhere to a particular religion, attacks on people who happen to have relationships with a consenting adult of the same sex.

The right wing whines about "freedom of speech" (when it suits their agenda) but they are the worst suppressors of it.

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 20^th, 2013 at 11:50am:

... wrote on Apr 20th, 2013 at 11:34am: The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 20th, 2013 at 11:33am: Soren wrote on Apr 19th, 2013 at 8:49pm: Soren wrote on Apr 19th, 2013 at 11:23am: If efnics express opposition to anything Australian = freedom of speech. If Australians express opposition to anything efnic = racism. Please explain. I want answers. Well Soren, when I see the crap posted by the Right I have the opposite dilemma attack the rights of ethnics, minority groups = freedom of speech defend these peoples rights = unaustralian terrorist supporter I think the confusion stems from a failure to distinguish "rights" from 'wants". No it doesn't. We have a thread by sprintcyclist advocating sterilisation of people who haven't learned "Australian" (sic) within 2 years of arriving here. We have other thread calling for the banning of people who adhere to a particular religion, attacks on people who happen to have relationships with a consenting adult of the same sex. The right wing whines about "freedom of speech" (when it suits their agenda) but they are the worst suppressors of it.

See?  People don't have a "right" to move anywhere they please - that is what's known as a "want."

I'm curious to know what form these "attacks" on homos take?  I assume you mean that they can't be legally married - well again, there is no "right" to usurp traditions for your own ends.  Again, it is a want.

yeah of course the 'right' doesnt care about freedom of speech or at least freedom of expression

look at the mental gymnastics/contortions they get into to justify their desire to ban burqas for example while reconciling this with an attempt to sound coherent/consistent with their enlightenment bullcrap

the mainstream right is in a very peculiar position as they've dug themselves into a hole where they must endlessly repeat to themselves and everybody else that 'individualism', support for free markets and adherence to the enlightenment values isthe yardstick by which one is considered a conservative, which is really weird when you think about it

its the same when you have u.k jewish neocons like dennis mcshane saying they want to restrict islamic immigration and 'islamofascism' because they stand with the founders of the enlightnment on the one hand, but on the other hand heading up committees/drives to illegalise the mere downloading and reading of anti-semitic and racially inflammatory content online

it's all part of a very pitiful race to the bottom with the left (who are guilty of the same tactics), where both political sides attempt to appear more supportive of to prevailing intellectual orthdoxy of the day which enshrines 'free speech' and 'free expression' while supporting hosts upon hosts of policies which essentially violate the very essence of these principles, because nobody is honest enough to just want to come out and say that sometimes 'freedom' might suck.

but yeah oh_yeah do you actually have any evidence that any of the 'right' members here want to ban homosexuality? attacking/criticising it, whatever the merit does not equal wanting to restrict the rights of homosexuals now is it?

... wrote on Apr 20^th, 2013 at 11:53am:

See?  People don't have a "right" to move anywhere they please - that is what's known as a "want." I'm curious to know what form these "attacks" on homos take?  I assume you mean that they can't be legally married - well again, there is no "right" to usurp traditions for your own ends.  Again, it is a want.

I never made any claim about the "right to move anywhere", that was your own incorrect diversionary interpretation. My issue is with people like sprintcyclist thinking they have right to tell people what language they are allowed to speak. If you describe speaking which ever laguage you choose is a "want" then you deserve to live in a police state.

whats wrong with telling people what language they should have to speak

what if there was evidence that bi-lingual societies were more prone to fractition, inter-group conflict and ethnic strife

what about the more obvious effects like the general loss of convenience and the ease of communication individuals would suffer in just carrying out basic day to day tasks

or the amount of time spent and opportunity costs having to instruct students in other languages

even having to communicate on the telephone with a call centre person with a thick accent is a pain in the arse enough

it seems pretty practical from a wide variety of perspectives to promote and institute a mono-lingual society, or at least it is something worth thoroughly investigating/scrutinising before anything rash and irreversible is carried out

JC Denton wrote on Apr 20^th, 2013 at 12:06pm:

but yeah oh_yeah do you actually have any evidence that any of the 'right' members here want to ban homosexuality? attacking/criticising it, whatever the merit does not equal wanting to restrict the rights of homosexuals now is it?

Ever since homosexuality was reluctantly legalised the Right have objected to every attempt to have equality in the law. I'm not just talking about "marriage" here I'm talking about other rights that we take for granted. Until recently in Australia gay couples were legally just seen as "room mates" they couldn't share insurance, they couldn't see one another in hospital (they weren't "family") If one died their possessions didn't automatically go to the other.

ok cool

i bet oh_yeah supports hate legislation

police state condemners always tend to support 'police states' of their own particular kind and preference

JC Denton wrote on Apr 20^th, 2013 at 12:20pm:

whats wrong with telling people what language they should have to speak what if there was evidence that bi-lingual societies were more prone to fractition, inter-group conflict and ethnic strife what about the more obvious effects like the general loss of convenience and the ease of communication individuals would suffer in just carrying out basic day to day tasks or the amount of time spent and opportunity costs having to instruct students in other languages even having to communicate on the telephone with a call centre person with a thick accent is a pain in the arse enough it seems pretty practical from a wide variety of perspectives to promote and institute a mono-lingual society, or at least it is something worth thoroughly investigating/scrutinising before anything rash and irreversible is carried out

Of course it is more convenient for people to learn English. I also accept that English is the official language of Australia. I don't have a problem with that.

I also believe that if a person chooses not to learn English or is unable to, then in a free society that should be accepted. I don't believe there is a role for the state to be enforcing language laws on us.

why should it be 'accepted'

why is it 'acceptable' for somebody to not want to learn a language, but it is 'unacceptable' for somebody to desire to shun that person from society for refusing to do so

furthermore i don't particularly see anything especially egregious about legislation aimed at encouraging/enforcing monolingualism, i dont pretend that this is consistent with 'freedom' and 'liberty' (dont give a bugger about either) but who cares itd prob in the long run make everybodys life easier and more pleasant

dont care eitherway tho

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 20^th, 2013 at 12:12pm:

... wrote on Apr 20th, 2013 at 11:53am: See?  People don't have a "right" to move anywhere they please - that is what's known as a "want." I'm curious to know what form these "attacks" on homos take?  I assume you mean that they can't be legally married - well again, there is no "right" to usurp traditions for your own ends.  Again, it is a want. I never made any claim about the "right to move anywhere", that was your own incorrect diversionary interpretation. My issue is with people like sprintcyclist thinking they have right to tell people what language they are allowed to speak. If you describe speaking which ever laguage you choose is a "want" then you deserve to live in a police state.

You've got the right to speak whatever language you want - he'd just require you to be able to speak english in addition.  As nothing is being denied or taken away by requiring someone to learn something else, no right is impinged. 

It seems obvious that if Sprintcylist feels this way, he probably wouldn't have them come here in the first place, and as there is no "right" to move anywhere you please, again, no right is impinged.

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 20^th, 2013 at 12:22pm:

JC Denton wrote on Apr 20th, 2013 at 12:06pm: but yeah oh_yeah do you actually have any evidence that any of the 'right' members here want to ban homosexuality? attacking/criticising it, whatever the merit does not equal wanting to restrict the rights of homosexuals now is it? Ever since homosexuality was reluctantly legalised the Right have objected to every attempt to have equality in the law. I'm not just talking about "marriage" here I'm talking about other rights that we take for granted. Until recently in Australia gay couples were legally just seen as "room mates" they couldn't share insurance, they couldn't see one another in hospital (they weren't "family") If one died their possessions didn't automatically go to the other.

Here's a list of rights.  Which one(s) are being denied to homos?


Quote:

List of human rights     Right to privacy     Right to live, exist     Right to have a family     To own property     Free Speech     Safety from violence     Equality of both males and females; women's rights     Fair trial     To be considered innocent until proven guilty     To be a citizen of a country     To be recognized as a person     The right to express his or her sexual orientation     To vote     To seek asylum if a country treats you badly     To think freely     To believe and practice the religion a person wants     To peacefully protest (speak against) a government or group     Health care (medical care)     Education     To communicate through a language     Not be forced into marriage     The right to love     The right to work     The right to express oneself

JC Denton wrote on Apr 20^th, 2013 at 12:35pm:

why should it be 'accepted' why is it 'acceptable' for somebody to not want to learn a language, but it is 'unacceptable' for somebody to desire to shun that person from society for refusing to do so furthermore i don't particularly see anything especially egregious about legislation aimed at encouraging/enforcing monolingualism, i dont pretend that this is consistent with 'freedom' and 'liberty' (dont give a bugger about either) but who cares itd prob in the long run make everybodys life easier and more pleasant dont care eitherway tho

Maybe - the two biggest growing nations in the world both have multilingual societies. China and India both have national languages, but only China has successfully implimented its state-decreed national language, Mandarin. In India, Hindi is not universally spoken or read. In the south, English is spoken more than Hindi.

The same is true in Europe, and increasingly throughout Asia. It is quite rare now for young Western Europeans not to speak English fluently. In Switzerland and parts of Italy and France, many speak French, Italian, German and English.

Australia is an exception in a world that is multilingual. Go to India, China, or old trading cities like Singapore, Penang, Hong Kong, etc, and you’ll find most people speak at least 3 languages fluently.

There’s evidence that multilingual societies are much more tolerant, integrated and prosperous than monolingual ones. The reason for prosperity is that language is the key to trade. The trading cities peppered along the old Silk Route from Persia to China prospered through trade, finance and taxation, many propping up the armies and kingdoms of their respective rulers. These societies were multilingual, pluralistic, outward-looking and open to foreigners.

I don't think there is any pragmatic reason to learn another language here.

It's a given that Europeans are going to speak multiple languages when their countries border on each other and are tiny.

Quote:

Paulson - See?  People don't have a "right" to move anywhere they please - that is what's known as a "want."

You do make me feel old. I remember the good old days when freedom of movement was one of the things that differentiated the 'West' from the Russkie commie bastards.

what freedom of movement was thaT? the white australia policy? the 1924 race and naturalisation act of the united states?

JC Denton wrote on Apr 20^th, 2013 at 4:49pm:

what freedom of movement was thaT? the white australia policy? the 1924 race and naturalisation act of the united states?

;D Quite, nobody could ever accuse 'the west' of being short on hypocrisy.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 20^th, 2013 at 4:14pm:

I don't think there is any pragmatic reason to learn another language here. .

I agree. To learn a language you need people to speak it with. Regularly.

Was there a pragmatic reason for Singapore to decree English as its official language following its independance?

None other than trade. In Singapore it’s common for kids to grow up with several languages - merely because people around them speak them. I’ve met ethnic Chinese Singaporeans who speak languages like Urdu and Tamil, solely because they learned from other kids in their streets and apartment blocks.

Language acquisition is a value in multilingual societies. Kids in Singapore could just as easily speak to each other in English, but kids are  curious and want to learn how other’s talk.

We don’t encourage this curiousity here. There is an unspoken rule to speak English to fit in.

Actually, this is a rule spoken all the time.

Australia is unique among the British colonies in that its early overseers did not adapt to the local languages. English officials and managers in the colonies were expected to learn the local languages. If you were sent to Africa or India or Egypt, you learnt Swahili or Hindi or Arabic and you spoke to your servants and employees in their language. This was the practice of the British until independance in the 1940s and 50s.

Arthur Phillip learned many Eora words and showed them off when he returned to England. Watkin Tench produced a short Eora dictionary. The British, it seems, have always been curious about other languages, and English has changed accordingly. The pukka set loved their worldly colonial patter, just as the soldiers and sailors came back with theirs.

Something happened, however, after the honeymoon period of early settlement in Australia, and then the successive waves of migration through the gold rush and after WWII. Governments, public servants and teachers (the nanny-state PC brigade) banned curiousity for other languages, and actively stamped them out. Aboriginals on the missions were banned from speaking their languages. Migrants were actively discouraged. Even the deaf were banned in schools from signing in their made-up language we now call, in bureaucratese, Auslan.

It’s not that Australians have not had the chance to learn different languages - it’s that language acquisition has essentially been whitewashed by decree, through successive government policies.

Interestingly, our rate of interracial marriage is now higher than countries like Singapore..Culturally and linguistically, however, we’re still rather plain. It’s a strange contrast noticed by tourists to the East Coast cities all the time. Australia’s a very multiracial society, but culturally, quite tidy and homogenised.

And we’re not like Germany and France, where groups of Turks and Arabs, for instance, live for generations without learning the local lingo. People largely integrate. This is a huge success, and it can be seen to have roots in the early policies and practices of settlers like Phillip.

So it is possible to have a national language, culture and set of dominant values, but be racially and ethnically heterogenous.

This is radically different to most other nations in our region, and a significantly different historical narrative to other British colonies.

I hate Mandarin.

Then eat an orange. Gud is good, no?

Mnemonic wrote on Apr 21^st, 2013 at 12:54am:

I hate Mandarin.

Why do you hate mandarin? Because its hard?

SOB

... wrote on Apr 20^th, 2013 at 1:07pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 20th, 2013 at 12:22pm: JC Denton wrote on Apr 20th, 2013 at 12:06pm: but yeah oh_yeah do you actually have any evidence that any of the 'right' members here want to ban homosexuality? attacking/criticising it, whatever the merit does not equal wanting to restrict the rights of homosexuals now is it? Ever since homosexuality was reluctantly legalised the Right have objected to every attempt to have equality in the law. I'm not just talking about "marriage" here I'm talking about other rights that we take for granted. Until recently in Australia gay couples were legally just seen as "room mates" they couldn't share insurance, they couldn't see one another in hospital (they weren't "family") If one died their possessions didn't automatically go to the other. Here's a list of rights.  Which one(s) are being denied to homos? Quote: List of human rights     Right to privacy     Right to live, exist     Right to have a family     To own property     Free Speech     Safety from violence     Equality of both males and females; women's rights     Fair trial     To be considered innocent until proven guilty     To be a citizen of a country     To be recognized as a person     The right to express his or her sexual orientation     To vote     To seek asylum if a country treats you badly     To think freely     To believe and practice the religion a person wants     To peacefully protest (speak against) a government or group     Health care (medical care)     Education     To communicate through a language     Not be forced into marriage     The right to love     The right to work     The right to express oneself

but you did forget the disclaimer


Quote:

Not everyone agrees on what the basic human rights are. Here is a list of some of the most recognized ones:

Having read those human rights it seems that the Right wing are in breach of many of them

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21^st, 2013 at 5:20am:

Why do you hate mandarin? Because its hard?

Yes, it's hard.

.

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 21^st, 2013 at 11:31am:

The right to express his or her sexual orientation Safety from violence

You'll have to explain just how these rights are being breached.

Is there some state-sanctioned campaign of violence aginst homos that I haven't been told about? 
Are homos at more risk of violence than others?

And again, Homos aren't stopped from expressing their sexuality by anyone...though one could argue that paedophiles and bestialists are.

Just admit it - your rights as a homo are intact, you just loooove to whinge.

... wrote on Apr 21^st, 2013 at 1:26pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 21st, 2013 at 11:31am: The right to express his or her sexual orientation Safety from violence You'll have to explain just how these rights are being breached. Is there some state-sanctioned campaign of violence aginst homos that I haven't been told about?  Are homos at more risk of violence than others? And again, Homos aren't stopped from expressing their sexuality by anyone...though one could argue that paedophiles and bestialists are. Just admit it - your rights as a homo are intact, you just loooove to whinge.

What world do you live in?
What have paedophiles and bestialists got to do with this issue?
It is also interesting that you use the term "homo" which actually refers to a genus of great apes which include modern humans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo

Your posts are destroying your own argument.

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 21^st, 2013 at 1:53pm:

Your posts are destroying your own argument.

You haven't said anything to be argued against yet. 
So, when you're finished throwing a huffy and feel like answering the question so that we can commence an argument, I'll be here....

Or throwing a huffy is your argument?

Mnemonic wrote on Apr 21^st, 2013 at 12:27pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21st, 2013 at 5:20am: Why do you hate mandarin? Because its hard? Yes, it's hard.

I have heard that arabic is the hardest . . . i think any language that has symbols nothing like ours would be hard.

SOB

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 11:42pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 16th, 2013 at 11:14pm: It is interesting this attempt to silence came from academics and not students. if you've ever worked in a university you would know that it is THE left-wing organization in the country. A friend of mine who worked in a uni was reprimanded for having a picture of Howard in his cubicle. Pictures of Keating however were acceptable. But just as when people get older and wiser they abandon left-wing silliness so do students when they leave the rarefied air of universities. The academics however never leave, never work in the real world and thus stay entrenched in their left-wing world where 'free speech' is a concept that applies the them but not everyone else.

A link to provide evidence for this?

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 21^st, 2013 at 1:53pm:

... wrote on Apr 21st, 2013 at 1:26pm: The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 21st, 2013 at 11:31am: The right to express his or her sexual orientation Safety from violence You'll have to explain just how these rights are being breached. Is there some state-sanctioned campaign of violence aginst homos that I haven't been told about?  Are homos at more risk of violence than others? And again, Homos aren't stopped from expressing their sexuality by anyone...though one could argue that paedophiles and bestialists are. Just admit it - your rights as a homo are intact, you just loooove to whinge. What world do you live in? What have paedophiles and bestialists got to do with this issue? It is also interesting that you use the term "homo" which actually refers to a genus of great apes which include modern humans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo Your posts are destroying your own argument.

actually he made a very insightful observation which damages your own. The 'right to you own sexual preference' clearly is not a right at all if it excludes ANY sexual preference and paedophiles and beastailists are denied that 'right'. So perhaps 'sexual preference' is not really a right at all. And dont talk about LEGAL sexual preferences because that would exclude gays as well up until relatively recent days and thats the thing about 'rights'. they are absolute not relative. they either are or arent... a right.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21^st, 2013 at 2:13pm:

Mnemonic wrote on Apr 21st, 2013 at 12:27pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21st, 2013 at 5:20am: Why do you hate mandarin? Because its hard? Yes, it's hard. I have heard that arabic is the hardest . . . i think any language that has symbols nothing like ours would be hard. SOB

doh....!!!

if you are raised on those symbols then ENGLISH alphabets are the more difficult.

Mandarin is considered difficult because of the sheer quantity of the symbols, not that their symbosl are any 'harder' than ours.

Deleted

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21^st, 2013 at 2:13pm:

Mnemonic wrote on Apr 21st, 2013 at 12:27pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21st, 2013 at 5:20am: Why do you hate mandarin? Because its hard? Yes, it's hard. I have heard that arabic is the hardest . . . i think any language that has symbols nothing like ours would be hard. SOB

You're talking about Latin script. Arabic may use different types of letters but it still has an alphabet. It is not some kind of symbol language.

Once that alphabet is learnt (which can be done in a day if you put your mind to it) it becomes not much harder than learning other languages.

There is a lot of overlap between Hebrew and Arabic. The hardest part about these languages is the vowel system, which uses pointers (some sort of dash or dot) above or below or to the side of the consonant letters, unlike us who use vowel letters. These can be particularly hard since they are often not written down but are filled in by the memory and knowledge of the reader. (For example, the last sentence in English without vowels; Ths cn b prtclrly hrd snc thy are ftn nt wrttn dwn bt r flld n by th mmry nd knwldg f th rdr. An native English speaker could fill in the gaps, while a new learner would have no idea.) 

The other hard part about Arabic is the different forms the letters take depending on their place in a word. In English, a H is a capital at the start of the word of a new sentence or proper noun, while it is a h everywhere else. That is two forms that have to be learnt. A S however looks like a S all the time. It just gets bigger if it is a capital. Despite this, our letters are very consistent. In Arabic though a letter can change its form depending on if it is the first letter of a word, a middle letter, the last letter, or by itself. Some letters therefore can have 4 different forms (while there are some that just have the one). Once that is mastered (again, a day or two is all that's needed to memorize them) Arabic becomes like most languages, where vocabulary and complicated grammar (mostly the verbs) take the most time. But Arabic is not that out there as far as a language goes.   

Bobby. wrote on Apr 21^st, 2013 at 2:17pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16th, 2013 at 11:42pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 16th, 2013 at 11:14pm: It is interesting this attempt to silence came from academics and not students. if you've ever worked in a university you would know that it is THE left-wing organization in the country. A friend of mine who worked in a uni was reprimanded for having a picture of Howard in his cubicle. Pictures of Keating however were acceptable. But just as when people get older and wiser they abandon left-wing silliness so do students when they leave the rarefied air of universities. The academics however never leave, never work in the real world and thus stay entrenched in their left-wing world where 'free speech' is a concept that applies the them but not everyone else. A link to provide evidence for this?

Longweekend is forgiven for not providing any evidence for his statements.

namaste

Quantum wrote on Apr 21^st, 2013 at 8:52pm:

There is a lot of overlap between Hebrew and Arabic. The hardest part about these languages is the vowel system, which uses pointers (some sort of dash or dot) above or below or to the side of the consonant letters, unlike us who use vowel letters. These can be particularly hard since they are often not written down but are filled in by the memory and knowledge of the reader. (For example, the last sentence in English without vowels; Ths cn b prtclrly hrd snc thy are ftn nt wrttn dwn bt r flld n by th mmry nd knwldg f th rdr. An native English speaker could fill in the gaps, while a new learner would have no idea.)  The other hard part about Arabic is the different forms the letters take depending on their place in a word. In English, a H is a capital at the start of the word of a new sentence or proper noun, while it is a h everywhere else. That is two forms that have to be learnt. A S however looks like a S all the time. It just gets bigger if it is a capital. Despite this, our letters are very consistent. In Arabic though a letter can change its form depending on if it is the first letter of a word, a middle letter, the last letter, or by itself. Some letters therefore can have 4 different forms (while there are some that just have the one). Once that is mastered (again, a day or two is all that's needed to memorize them) Arabic becomes like most languages, where vocabulary and complicated grammar (mostly the verbs) take the most time. But Arabic is not that out there as far as a language goes.

Thanks for that. I think now if I ever try to learn Hebrew or Arabic in the future, it will be easier.

Karnal wrote on Apr 21^st, 2013 at 12:49am:

It’s not that Australians have not had the chance to learn different languages - it’s that language acquisition has essentially been whitewashed by decree, through successive government policies.

Yeah, too much nationalism and jingoism is the cause. You speak English to prove you're loyal to this country, leading to reverse racism by ethnics to not speak their ancestral language in public. The idea that only whites practise reverse racism isn't true. Ethnics do it too by not speaking their ancestral language in public. By the second generation ethnics cease to be fluent speakers in this foreign language. Most probably can't read or write it anymore. They can only speak in that foreign language and they only know the words for a few, basic everyday items and concepts. They can't write essays with what they know and remember. They're illiterate in that foreign language.

These are the things we do just to be a nation. It is your patriotic duty to forget languages other than English. People don't give ethnics enough credit for linguistic amnesia.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 21^st, 2013 at 2:20pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21st, 2013 at 2:13pm: Mnemonic wrote on Apr 21st, 2013 at 12:27pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21st, 2013 at 5:20am: Why do you hate mandarin? Because its hard? Yes, it's hard. I have heard that arabic is the hardest . . . i think any language that has symbols nothing like ours would be hard. SOB doh....!!! if you are raised on those symbols then ENGLISH alphabets are the more difficult. Mandarin is considered difficult because of the sheer quantity of the symbols, not that their symbosl are any 'harder' than ours.

go away troll

SOB

Mnemonic wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2013 at 1:26am:

Karnal wrote on Apr 21st, 2013 at 12:49am: It’s not that Australians have not had the chance to learn different languages - it’s that language acquisition has essentially been whitewashed by decree, through successive government policies. Yeah, too much nationalism and jingoism is the cause. You speak English to prove you're loyal to this country,.

True, but until the early 1970s, Australia lived in the shadow of Mother England. You hardly heard an Australian accent on TV or radio, and if you did it was for comic effect.

It was as if Australians in the cities finally woke up one day and realised they were actually living in Asia, not some outer suburb of London.

What a dreary, phony little suburban backwater we must have lived in. Don’t take my word for it, listen to people like Barry Humphries, Clive James and even John Singleton. Australians lived in a surreal colonial backwater that in no way held the mirror up to our nature. Australians were taught to hate the way we were, and we tried desperately to be someone else.

At the same time, we exported a brutal form of authenticity back to the mother country and to Hollywood. Errol Flynn, Humphries, and many of the current crop of actor exports are known for their blunt charm and brutal honesty.

There is a tension and duality in being a colonial. Who knows? We may have resolved most of it - largely by embracing multiculturalism. But for the first half of the 20th century, we tried to be more English than Mother England. God knows how many young lives it cost us in their wars, but we relied on the mother country because they bought our wool. Our pound was even pegged to theirs. We were like a Soviet satelite state.

Thank God we got out of that deal, but be under no illusions where we’re heading. The future, friends. is China and India.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 21^st, 2013 at 10:07pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 21st, 2013 at 2:17pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16th, 2013 at 11:42pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 16th, 2013 at 11:14pm: It is interesting this attempt to silence came from academics and not students. if you've ever worked in a university you would know that it is THE left-wing organization in the country. A friend of mine who worked in a uni was reprimanded for having a picture of Howard in his cubicle. Pictures of Keating however were acceptable. But just as when people get older and wiser they abandon left-wing silliness so do students when they leave the rarefied air of universities. The academics however never leave, never work in the real world and thus stay entrenched in their left-wing world where 'free speech' is a concept that applies the them but not everyone else. A link to provide evidence for this? Longweekend is forgiven for not providing any evidence for his statements. namaste

Longweekend is forgiven for being friends with someone who would put up a picture of John Howard.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21^st, 2013 at 2:13pm:

Mnemonic wrote on Apr 21st, 2013 at 12:27pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21st, 2013 at 5:20am: Why do you hate mandarin? Because its hard? Yes, it's hard. I have heard that arabic is the hardest . . . i think any language that has symbols nothing like ours would be hard. SOB

For a person with your abilities SPOT, Arabic would be simple to learn.

You know it.

Come on, don't be modest.

Allah Uakbar, Y. Gud is great, no?

Looks like Oh_Yeah has bailed out.

Yadda wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2013 at 10:04pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21st, 2013 at 2:13pm: Mnemonic wrote on Apr 21st, 2013 at 12:27pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21st, 2013 at 5:20am: Why do you hate mandarin? Because its hard? Yes, it's hard. I have heard that arabic is the hardest . . . i think any language that has symbols nothing like ours would be hard. SOB For a person with your abilities SPOT, Arabic would be simple to learn. You know it. Come on, don't be modest.

What the bugger?

SOB