Israel Folau isn’t backing down from his views on gay marriage, child transgenderism and all that. Which is fine – of course it’s fine. He is indeed allowed his views and also to speak them – that’s what a liberal society means. Being liberal doesn’t mean we’ve got to agree with him. Nor praise him for his views, support them, approve of them. But we do have to tolerate him, his views and his right to express them. Because, you know, definition of liberal and all that.
A point that rather too many don’t quite grasp. Because we are indeed talking exact mirror image here. Blokes in frocks? Why not? In the absence of third party harm – and there ain’t no third party harm in the basic idea – then the rest of us must indeed tolerate how another consenting adult wishes to live their life. The chop? Hey, their gonads, not your or mine.
Yes, third party harm does come into it. Just because a convicted rapist slaps on a bit of rouge we shouldn’t then be placing them in a female prison where he’s a good supply of fresh meat to oppress. Something which did actually happen and which shouldn’t have. Quite apart from anything else why should we lock up women with a convicted, male, rapist?
We’ve also got to be precise about our meaning of third party harm here. Which, in standard law, we are. Actual actions to harm, yes, that’s harm. Incitement to causing harm – immediate incitement to violence for example. That’s a crime, should be a crime and will remain one. Hurting feelings? Nope. That ain’t and shouldn’t be. Although there’s a certain insistence out there that stating something that others consider hurtful or hateful should be a crime.
So, Folau’s sermon:
Agree or don’t agree with what is being said. As you wish. But to argue that he shouldn’t be allowed to say it, nor broadcast it, is to be illiberal.
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””] Talking to the congregation at the Truth of Jesus Christ Church in the Sydney suburbs, the 30-year-old said the devil was encouraging children to change gender. “They are allowing young kids in primary school, to be able to have the permission to change their gender if they want, by taking away the permission of their parents,” Folau said. “Now they’re trying to take control as a government to make those decisions for young kids, basically that are 16 years old or younger, they don’t even know what they’re doing… this is what the devil’s trying to do to instil into this government, into this world, into society, and it’s slowly happening.” [/perfectpullquote]As it happens I don’t see any harm in the 7 year old Eric demanding to be called Erica and do in anyone flashing drugs or scalpels around for anyone less than fully compos mentis and fully adult. But that’s just me.
Which is exactly the point. We’ve all our foibles and errors and the only useful definition of a liberal society is one that tolerates all of them – absent that third party harm.
The language we use matters - it provides clarity to our own thoughts and enables…
It is now generally acknowledged that the structure of the NHS needs to be overhauled…
In the film Apollo 13, a loss of oxygen causes the crew to start inadvertently…
There's an idea out there which seems intuitive but then so many ideas do seem…
When we think about the darkly opaque goals of modern central bankers as they relate…
As the papers recently filled with the distressing images of desperate souls looking to escape…
View Comments
The trend toward not tolerating Christian view points is well advanced, being intolerant of Muslim ones less so, at least in media and at a governmental level. The intolerance is equally about ideas as it is about groups, favoured or otherwise.
No platforming academics, arresting street preachers and blocking social media posters for simply expressing non-progressive opinion is far more common if the offensive are white, male or Christian, than if they are not. Who you are, as well as what you say, is as important to the censors.
The crime of having the wrong identity is firstly punishable by social ostracisation, it is only a small step towards compulsory re-education and incarceration and it is a step that we have already begun to tread. Having the wrong identity and the wrong opinions puts one beyond the pale.
This is, of course, as the 20th C attests is not a new phenomena, yet today's tyranny is novel, it is coming less from the executive than used to be the case and more from the masses, masses of academics, journalists and talking heads that is. This is a new form of despotism, mob rule by the commentariat, persecution by pundit. Governments nowadays are followers in this respect, not leaders as they once were.
It is easier to stand against a political party or political system, however violent or oppressive, than it is to counter the vacuous group think of the unthinking, intellectual and emotional conformity has no leader to assassinate, no head office to storm, no election to replace and no army to defeat.
The only protest is speech, which is why they curtail it so.
But it does cause harm, because the rest of us under pain of legal or other sanction - flying milk shakes or battery acid even - must believe in what is being preached that man is a woman if he/she/it says so and we must act towards them and speak about/to them as they and others demand, abandoning reason and science for doctrine and dogma.
The Holy Inquisition is in the land.