An open thread where you can, at your weekend leisure, discuss whatever you like.
18 Responses to “Saturday Salon”
Leave a Reply
Please read the comments policy. If you would like an icon beside your comment, please register a Gravatar.
There is a Comments Preview function below the typing box which activates when you start typing.
If, as I believe, the ends of men are many, and not all of them are in
principal compatible with each other, then the possibility of conflict –
and of tragedy – can never be wholly eliminated from human life, either
personal or social. The necessity of choosing between absolute claims is
then an inescapable characteristic of the human condition – Isaiah Berlin
Contrary to the assumption often made in liberal or progressive circles,
all good things are not in harmony, are not mutually reinforcing. There
is not a unity of goods. Often the hardest and most unpleasant choices
have to be made, not between good and bad things, but between desirable
things – between freedom and order; between generosity and justice;
between peace and human rights – and making them is not a matter of
hypocrisy and double standards, as it is regularly accused of being, but
an inherent and unavoidable part of life. – Owen Harries
And, on a lighter note, has anyone ever noticed what comes up on the spellchecker when it comes across an unfamiliar name? Our host’s brings up “banish” (no, Mark, never). I work with a woman who’s spelling suggestion brings up “ratsbane”. I’m not even sure what ratsbane is, but it doesn’t sound good. Another bloke I know came up as “beers” (VERY appropriate in his case), and my boss, who’s hair colour has always been a bit suss in my book, brings up “hennaed”.
My surname’s a noun, so doesn’t work – bummer.
The Da Vinci code wasn’t plagiarised. That’s alright then.
But the upcoming film has Opus Dei worried.
They should worry more about whether the spate of docos about the real Opus Dei gives people the wrong idea about them.
Or the right idea?
Like – the virtues of self-mortification and whether setting up an Islamic Opus Dei would spread freedom and democracy…
We bloggers are all Publishers and Journalists and the Electronic Freedom Front has a legal guide to amuse y’all:
the address of which…
http://eff.org/bloggers/lg/
I lived for a couple of years in Warrane College at UNSW, which is run by Opus Dei. They have some very strange ideas. Imposing the burqa would be quite consistent with my experience of them.
As I’ve clarified before I don’t think having a national ID card is a big deal. But I am alarmed by the noises being made about ‘banning inflammatory language’, which seems to extend to banning the preaching of jihad
http://smh.com.au/news/national/terror-redefines-our-freedom/2005/08/05/1123125908789.html
Mr Howard signalled that civil liberties may have to be redefined in the battle against terrorism. “The most important civil liberty I have and you have is to stay alive and to be free from violence and death,” he said.
“I think when people talk about civil liberties they sometimes forget that action taken to protect the citizen against physical attack is a blow in favour and not a blow against civil liberties.”
Balancing the need to prevent terrorism with individual rights was a challenge, he said.
On the agenda of the national summit, which Mr Howard described as a “working session”, are tighter counter-terrorism laws, a new national identity system and increased security for trains and buses.
Australia needed to review the lessons learnt from the London bombings, although every country needed a “home-grown response”, he said, adding that the premiers had been given time to come up with detailed proposals.
Also invited will be the Australian Federal Police.
Warning that the fight would be long, Mr Howard called on everyone, including influential Muslims, to work together. He said Australia’s fundamental values such as “an abhorrence of violence” needed to be reasserted to reduce the the chances of an attack. He also hit out at radical Muslims advocating jihad.
“Supporting a jihad has no place in the values of this country. A jihad is the epitome of intolerance, is the epitome of negativity and darkness which we do not want in this country.”
He refused to say whether Muslims with extreme views should be deported, saying the rule of law had to be respected.
>>>>
It’s heartening to see Howard has suddenly become an expert on Islamic theology. Presumably he has considered the possibility that jihad can also mean an internal struggle against temptation and presumably the enforcers of his mooted laws will be well-versed enough in the intricacies of this to distinguish ‘good’ jihad from ‘bad’ jihad.
Unfortunately some of the left have left themselves vulnerable on this front as they have long supported anti-vilification laws, all of which I’ve always opposed as a matter of principle (there are some exceptions like Phillip Adams). But how many on the right are going to lay their cards on the table now and say they are opposed to such laws, given their vocal opposition to anti-vilification laws? observa? Although I haven’t blogged on this yet, I will herwith voice my opposition and alarm. Note that he hasn’t even ruled out deporting people solely on the basis of their opinions!
This issue will sort the pro-free speech wheat from the chaff
“He [Howard] said Australia‚Äôs fundamental values such as “an abhorrence of violence” needed to be reasserted to …”
That one is a bit rich considering Iraq but lets assume he means not joining the US in an attack on Iran– perhaps.
Anti-vilification laws are an extension of laws statutory or common, which exist in part to prevent incitement to commit violence. The common law on incitement is a bit like being an accessory and has been around for ages, nothing new there. And it should be applied equally to all.
Don’t think I’m vulnerable on that score Jason, but I think some on the Right will have to engage in some rather difficult differentiation gymnastics allowing exclusive rights to their inflammatory/inciting language.
Free speech can never be absolute. Premise 1.
“…some on the Right ….”
I don’t believe in banning speech for any reason, Peter, unless it breaks the criminal code and clearly incites to violence against the person (a crime in itself) – something which the community, through the jury system, must decide, not the govenrment.
Or relates to someone shouting ‘fire!’ in a crowded theatre, as we’ve discussed before.
I think there’s a difference between anti-vilification laws and laws restricting speech on the grounds that it incites terror, but I’ll have to think about what it is! Any ideas?
I think we have to rely on the old common law concepts of protecting people from physical threats against the person or property – or incitement or conspiracy to do such – and leave ahhorrent, hateful voices that don’t meet those criteria to be dealt with by community opprobrium, not government fiat. But then I’m a conservative.
As you have rightly pointed out Jason,
howard has no idea of the difference between the greatr and lesser Jihad. I assume he is talking about the lesser jihad.
Banning that for musloms would be the same as banning the ressurrection for christians.
Of course if you point out this in Victoria you are charged and convicted!
that will be the first law to go.
Very interesting post by John Quiggin on left to right converts. He points out that the well known phenomenon of people having an equally dogmatic but inverted ideology is odd. He suggests that finding oneself in error in the first place should lead to a scepticism about adopting a rigid rightist position.
Any comment, EP and Rob?
Too close to home to say anything useful, Kim, except that I don’t think I espouse any ideology, dogmatic, inverted or otherwise.
My semi-serious take on ‘Zealous Convert Syndrome’
http://badanalysis.com/catallaxy/?p=1076
Hmmm. I guess I fit most of your stereotypical criteria for a ‘zealous convert’, Jason. Strangely, I fail to feel bad about it. And I have enormous respect for David Horowitz, although I disagree with roughly half of what he has to say these days.
I rather enjoyed this story.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1535981,00.html