Revoking Privileges from those Voicing Opinions Contrary to Yours

[Pushka]

At the end of the day, it's Qantas' lounge. They set the rules and standards by which members are considered and then given CL. There may be wording in those rules/standards that now disqualifies him from the CL. But it's basically their freedom of speech, to say whether they want him to have the membership or not.

So it’s a Qantas policy where such rules are set or more the arbitrary decision of someone in management as to what constitutes a reason for withdrawal of invitation?

 

[harvyk]

<snip>
The UN had a crack in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
<snip>

And when did the UN become a Qantas shareholder?

Remember, it's freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences. Just because you have a right to say something doesn't mean that I still have to like you afterwards.

 

[TomVexille]

So it’s a Qantas policy where such rules are set or more the arbitrary decision of someone in management as to what constitutes a reason for withdrawal of invitation?

But isn't that fundamentally what CL is? It's not earned, it's a decision by management.

 

[oz_mark]

And when did the UN become a Qantas shareholder?

What has being a shareholder got to do with anything. The points is, even the UN that champions free speech admits there are limits.

Remember, it's freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences. Just because you have a right to say something doesn't mean that I still have to like you afterwards.

Never said it wasn't. Anyone that has put more than 2 seconds though into the freedom of speech thing realises that unfettered freedom of speech is an impossible goal, and there are always lines.

 

[Renato1]

The good thing about this discussion that you have started and being had here - is that it is being had here, in this thread.

If one were in Sweden, one would probably avoid replying - if one's opinion was contrary to the mainstream - for fear of dooming all future prospects of promotion, or even for fear of demotion.

In the USA, one would similarly avoid replying for fear of being fired by one's employer.

Because of the Fair Work Commission, and Federal Court for people on higher salaries, we have much greater freedom of speech here in Australia than in the USA, where their famous First Amendment only protects free speech from interference by Government - not by employers.

Senator Anning's very dopey and illogical comments about the Muslims killed in New Zealand, weren't racist - they were critical of a religion, not of a race.

In sharp contrast, Senator Anning alone has been standing up for the Chinese, Vietnamese and Indians who - gauging by the frequency of nightly news reports here - have predominantly been the victims of attacks and home invasions by Sudanese gangs in Melbourne, which no one in the media seems to make note of, for some strange reason. I recollect the ABC's webpage when reporting on his last visit to Melbourne, stating he was with a right wing group, and even it had a picture of him surrounded by happy Asian supporters.

Regards,
Renato

 

[burmans]

Senator Anning's very dopey and illogical comments about the Muslims killed in New Zealand, weren't racist - they were critical of a religion, not of a race.

Sure, but lets not fool ourselves that the fact they have swarthy complexiions isnt a factor that plays into such comment's, I've yet to see senator Anning of his ilk criticise religions like the Amish for example. I strongly suspect this is no coincidence.

I recollect the ABC's webpage when reporting on his last visit to Melbourne, stating he was with a right wing group, and even it had a picture of him surrounded by happy Asian supporters.

Sure, but noone here is suggesting that only white people can be racist, despite the fact that some of the most egregious examples seem to be white at the present moment.

 

[Pushka]

Sure, but lets not fool ourselves that the fact they have swarthy complexiions isnt a factor that plays into such comment's, I've yet to see senator Anning of his ilk criticise religions like the Amish for example. I strongly suspect this is no coincidence.

Sure, but noone here is suggesting that only white people can be racist, despite the fact that some of the most egregious examples seem to be white at the present moment.

Lots of significant assumptions there.

 

[CaptJCool]

The short answer is revocation is the wrong knee jerk response.

But let’s for a moment egg on the debate.

The very freedoms the left for fought are not what recent migrants enjoy whence they came from. You know things like gender equality, women driving cars, racial discrimination, “initiation practices” and adult monogamous marriage. So the left have a missionary like job ahead of them to ensure the rule of law in this land applies to anyone who chooses to live here. It’s only when they can know “Australia is my country” that those old ideas can be left behind. But that’s hard, cause second languages are hard to learn, and food habits practically impossible to change.

As the the right, they have a missionary like job ahead of them to ensure the rule of law in this land applies to those born here. You know things like what Christians are meant to do - love thy neighbour, marry for life, keep the children safe, vote for a republic, grant catholic priests the right to actually marry. Dig a little deeper, and we have the theatre parody. “The Book of Mormons”. There were shootings in a church in the USA, and there’s constant outright public abuse and criticism of Christians as if they are all hypocrites and racists. So do we ban all God-hating vocal atheists ?

EVEN WHEN The then PM GILLARD DISAPPROVED of same gender marriage, we didn’t see Joyce ban her or all Fed MPs..... we even had gutless Labor MPs vote after the plebiscite for when their districts clearly said NO. Do we ban the 4 because they apparently are homophobic and voted No in the Parliamentary vote?

This is no easy path and democracy means everyone has an opinion on everything and agree to disagree. Verdicts and views will always have barracked on both sides and we can blame the AFL for that tribalism. Why ? Well blame someone else but never your supporters l

 

[Pushka]

Goodness gracious.. a lot of cloud seeding happening.. rain is imminent….

I’m really just seeing other opinions pointing out some elephants. And lack of consequences. I don’t agree there should be consequences. But the disparity is interesting.

 

[Renato1]

Sure, but lets not fool ourselves that the fact they have swarthy complexiions isnt a factor that plays into such comment's, I've yet to see senator Anning of his ilk criticise religions like the Amish for example. I strongly suspect this is no coincidence.

Daryl Jones and Christopher Havard were white Muslims converts/Al Qaeda members blown up in a US drone strike, who it is alleged all over the internet at the moment, went to the mosque at Christchurch.
Family seeks answers on Australian's drone strike death
I don't think they had swarthy complexion.

Sure, but noone here is suggesting that only white people can be racist, despite the fact that some of the most egregious examples seem to be white at the present moment.

I think you'd have difficulty looking around the world where most of the atrocities are being committed, to find white people as the most egregious examples. Nigeria, Middle East, Chinese oppression of Muslims etc etc. Instead I see the most astounding examples of white people offering aylum and sanctuary all over the planet.
Regards,
Renato

 

[Happy Dude]

I've yet to see senator Anning of his ilk criticise religions like the Amish for example. I strongly suspect this is no coincidence.

Why would he (criticise)? I've yet to see the Amish drive a truck through a Christmas market in Europe, fly a couple of planes into skyscrapers, or wipe out a Christian minority in Sudan, etc etc ad nauseum, but when they do, I suspect there'll be plenty of people criticising them.

But, the notion of criticism or criticising is an interesting one.

We cannot have a civil and mature debate relating to virtually anything in this country because as soon as someone says anything remotely "critical", they are singled out as extreme or branded as "haters" or some kind of "-aphobe". How do we discuss muslim immigration or gay marriage or foreign investment without asking "What are the negatives here?". We don't/can't. Because critical analysis and thought is swamped by virtue-signalling loud mouths usually desperate to stay 'relevant' (or make money, get ratings, get votes etc). It's a very stifling environment for a "privileged" white, middle-aged, heterosexual male.

As for the CL, QF may do as they please, provided they don't break laws. Same applies to Senator Anning.

 

[Moody]

Aren't we forgetting that 50 peaceful people were murdered by the Scumbag, and the senator's response was to label them as "Muslim Fanatics" who were somehow responsible for their own deaths.

I agree - he shouldn't be deprived of CL access. He should be deprived of oxygen.

Edit :- actually a better idea is to copy the excellent NZ response to Erdogan's base dog-whistling. But instead of sending our Foreign Minister, we should send the senator. Only need a one-way ticket .....

 

[Pushka]

Aren't we forgetting that 50 peaceful people were murdered by the Scumbag, and the senator's response was to label them as "Muslim Fanatics" who were somehow responsible for their own deaths.

I agree - he shouldn't be deprived of CL access. He should be deprived of oxygen.

Edit :- actually a better idea is to copy the excellent NZ response to Erdogan's base dog-whistling. But instead of sending our Foreign Minister, we should send the senator. Only need a one-way ticket .....

Probably the most inflammatory post on here. I’m drawing the long straw and assume you are talking about the NZ tragedy and if so I’m pretty disgusted by what you’ve posted.

 

[drron]

The idiot now in custody in Christchurch is winning.New Zealand bookstore bans Jordan Peterson's book 12 Rules for Life.
A quote from said book-
“Intolerance of others’ views (no matter how ignorant or incoherent they may be) is not simply wrong; in a world where there is no right or wrong, it is worse: it is a sign you are embarrassingly unsophisticated or, possibly, dangerous.”

 

[Quickstatus]

The idiot now in custody in Christchurch is winning.New Zealand bookstore bans Jordan Peterson's book 12 Rules for Life.
A quote from said book-
“Intolerance of others’ views (no matter how ignorant or incoherent they may be) is not simply wrong; in a world where there is no right or wrong, it is worse: it is a sign you are embarrassingly unsophisticated or, possibly, dangerous.”

More often than not, those who shout racist or other xx_xx_phobes epithets should often look in the mirror. The most intolerant are often the ones who are the loudest. Also beware those who say they have the moral high ground because they are usually the ones who label their opponents with “shut them down” labels - putting them into a group/identity while at the same time also putting themselves into their own “morally superior” group. Problem with all this group/identity stuff is that everyone in the group has to think the same way

When society is not allowed to freely think, debate and argue - where so iety can only talk about a subject this way but not any other way, then we are truly in trouble.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

When society is not allowed to freely think, debate and argue - where so iety can only talk about a subject this way but not any other way, then we are truly in trouble.

Agree. But this doesn't mean we should continually re-hash devisive issues that have already been the subject of extensive debate and an appropriate outcome determined. If we are presented with a new issue, let's debate it freely. But if we as a society have decided that some things are harmful or anti-social the time to reopen that debate may have passed.

 

[Moody]

Probably the most inflammatory post on here. I’m drawing the long straw and assume you are talking about the NZ tragedy and if so I’m pretty disgusted by what you’ve posted.

Que? The announcement by Qantas that they were reviewing the senator's CL access is 100% about his vile comments following the Christchurch murders. Where have you been?? I am completely stunned by your ignorance of this fact.

 

[oz_mark]

Probably the most inflammatory post on here. I’m drawing the long straw and assume you are talking about the NZ tragedy and if so I’m pretty disgusted by what you’ve posted.

What was that about free speech again?

 

[drron]

What was that about free speech again?

Which also gives people the right to be disgusted doesn't it?

 

[Pushka]

Which also gives people the right to be disgusted doesn't it?

And isn’t that the tale of this whole thread. It’s ok for him to have his invite revoked because of his comments but I’m condemned if I post what I opine about a post stating the contrary opinion.

What was that about free speech again?

They can post what they wish as long as it isn’t defamatory. I can likewise post what I wish about that post. So a perfect example of free speech in action. What are you suggesting?
Or don’t I get the same freedoms to do so if I disagree? Which is exactly the point I made pages ago. It seems that Freedom of Speech is a one way street these days.

Also, Morrison is not his mate which is what was inferred.