‘Virtue bullies vs free speech’: pick your side

Madlin Sims sparked off a fresh furore on the SSM vote versus free speech when she announced on Facebook that she had sacked a contractor because they expressed their support for a No vote in upcoming postal survey.

“Men and women must be educated, in a great degree, by the opinions and manners of the society they live in,” wrote Mary Wollstonecraft. Welcome to the Readers’ Comments column, where we curate the best of your say on the issues of the day and it’s always an education. Let’s engage ...

As the same-sex marriage debate intensified and the survey forms lobbed in letterboxes, a furore erupted over the sacking of a Christian teenager from a children’s party business for indicating on Facebook she supported the ‘No’ case. This prompted The Mocker to suggest it was the ‘Virtue bullies vs free speech’, from silencing criticism of politicians or officials to publicly shaming those whose opinions are verboten. Comment of the Week goes to Peter, who feared the rise of a new, Orwellian inequality:

“Good on you, once again, Mocker. Intelligent and forthright, and nicely researched. It’s beneficial to hear what’s going on in the UK, where live examples of changes to fundamental social institutions are careering madly ahead. It provides some interesting factual warnings to us here in Oz, where the revolutionary brigade has been a few years behind.

“Your warning is about ‘Steps 1 and 2’: Step 1: the state and as you so aptly put it, the unelected tribunes, will monitor public speech; Step 2: then they will monitor what used to be known as ‘private’ speech, applying various neologistic labels to various classes of utterance.

“Can I suggest that we should be expecting a further step, where the application of the rules will quickly move from one putatively level platform — all are equal before the law, law has no regard for persons — to a new platform.

“Step 3: the law will be applied selectively to classes of person who form a deemed privileged and oppressive sector of society in order to positively create ‘freedoms’ (e.g., so-called safe spaces) for a designated oppressed class of persons.”

Committed Christian and recently fired Madeline, who did not want her surname revealed, at Parliament House in Canberra. Picture Kym Smith

Ames looked back in anger:

“The difference nowadays is that social media gives everyone a voice and a platform to hide behind. The accepted norm is to be utterly vile to one another. Akin to throwing rocks at each other from across the river. Oh how I yearn for simpler, happier days!”

Richard had a revelation:

“There is a book in the bible titled Revelations of Saint John which quite accurately predicts the type of persecution we are experiencing today. Soon you will require a mark in your hand or head to actually purchase goods.”

Take my wife, please, said Mike:

“My wife had a live and let live attitude to the SSM vote and was tending to a Yes vote. But having seen the behaviour of the Yes team she has cast a No vote. Well done.”

Robyn feared the worst:

“ ‘ ... the government will remove democracy’s flagship right for those deemed to have violated the prescribed standards of behaviour.’ Let me guess who does the ‘prescribing’, what those standards are and who has violated them. The Gulag awaits.”

Ken was out, loud and proud:

“I have no intention of caving in to the ‘politically correct’ brigade. I want AHRC closed down, I support ‘stop the boats’, I support the NO vote on SSM.”

Greg Doyle threw down the gauntlet:

“I, as a white, middle aged, hetero, Christian male will be proudly voting No on the homosexual marriage survey. I also show my full name in the comments section. So, there you have it you virtue signalling snowflakes. Bring on the bullying. I dare you.”

Peter was peeved:

“@Greg Doyle Mate, it’s not bullying, it’s just telling you that your opinion is off kilter. As a declared hetero, SSM will have no impact on you. None. And here you are beating your chest, denying a freedom to a select bunch of people you have nothing to do with.

“If I’m virtue signalling it is because you are discriminating — and if you are happy to permit discrimination, you should be prepared to be discriminated against. I for one do not wish for any discrimination to occur and so I will be voting Yes. We should not draw lines between people unless we are happy to have a line drawn in front of us.”

Post made by Madlin Sims where she stands by her right to sack Madeline for saying she would vote No on Facebook.

Jamie feared the worst:

“ ‘Perhaps it is only a matter of time before what is said around the kitchen table could see you answer to a tribunal. Best say and do nothing.’ Those new large screen, High Definition, ‘smart’ TVs popping up in households across Australia may very well be the final death knell for freedom of thought, speech and association. Beware of who’s watching and listening to you.”

Mark blamed Marx:

“George Orwell’s 1984 thought police are closer to becoming a reality. Thinkpol sounds like a class that would sit comfortably alongside Safe Schools, most universities and a branch of the Labor/Green parties.

“And to think we once thanked God we had the West’s freedoms compared to the old Soviet Union and the KGB. Thanks to Triggs, Sims and people like them, that is fading fast. Thanks lefties. Onwards comrades!”

Marco Polo explored the wilder shores of hope:

“To my gay friends, be proud of what you are and embrace the difference. Create your own institutions that would be meaningful to you.

“You do not have to be used by the activist Left to advance their political agenda. You do not need to take the concept of marriage which is meaningful and precious to heterosexual couples for your own. You already have the legal rights.”

James said just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean they are not out to get you:

“Madeline is lucky she can still make political opinions on Facebook. Facebook is slowly ‘shadow banning’ all those who vent political opinions opposed by the left. I found myself ‘shadow banned’ after supporting Trump and after outlining a case that ‘Climate Change is a Con’.

“This is so Orwellian it scares me. The thought police have got me. Whats next? Should I expect to be dragged off and ‘retrained’?”

-

When Malcolm Roberts fronted the High Court for his citizenship hearing this week, many readers were sceptical, including Colin:

“Makes a change from the old ‘my dog ate my homework’. How many twists, turns and backflips will this joker perform before he does the honourable thing, admits he was wrong and resigns instead of all this mentally insulting waffle?”

Said Paul:

“Why does it not surprise me to hear of this guy’s strange answers in cross-examination when one of his core beliefs is that the global warming debate is being fostered by a secret conspiracy from the World Bank?”

One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts walks from the Commonwealth Law Courts building during lunch break after being questioned by government lawyers over his UK citizenship at the High Court, Brisbane. Picture: AAP

AKA Peter got practical:

“The test of citizenship for Roberts and all the other politicians caught up in this mess needs to something along the lines of:

1. Have they ever travelled on the passport of another country?

2. Have they reached out to another country for welfare, financial aid, education, legal help and or advice?

3. Have they ever been reliant on another country for any help? Have they genuinely believed that they had one citizenship only, Australia?

“If they have always behaved as if they where citizens of Australia only, then that’s what they are, all of them.”

Russell saw benefits in AKA Peter’s test:

“That should get rid of Sam Dastyari, and a good thing too.”

Gosling was no goose:

“He obviously did know he could be a dual citizen. The question is whether the email sent on the 6th, three days before nominations closed, was an effective process or at least a reasonable effort.”

Richard was merciless:

“To all politicians ... ignorance is no excuse. All candidates sign a s44 declaration. Prior to signing that document was the time to ensure everything was correct.”

Which gave Len an idea:

“@Richard Er, dual — but maybe politicians should take up duelling; would result in determining who was right and deliver an ever decreasing number of politicians at the same time.”

-

Janet Albrechtsen’s think piece on how the greatest ‘First World problem’ of all was the coming plague of complacency, generated plenty of debate. Rob hit the history books, earning 90 likes:

“A Japanese scholar once wrote:

Hard times create strong men

Strong men create good times

Good times create weak men

Weak men create hard times

This cycle has been a constant through history, and we are well progressed into the third stage.”

Illustration: Sturt Krygsman

Raymond earns runner-up Comment of the Week for recounting his own hard times:

“My family lived in a tin shed with no floor and no running water. After six months we got a concrete floor. After one year we got a radio and a second hand ice chest. After three years we got electricity. Moving into a real house we got a kerosene refrigerator and my father’s employers provided a telephone.

“My father got his first car (15 years old) when I was aged 21 and I got my first car (14 years old) when I was aged 22. During my primary school years I would see swaggies riding from town on a loaded up bicycle looking for casual work.

“Some children came to school barefoot because their parents could not afford to buy shoes. University was for the rich and boys took any job that they could get after leaving school at age 15. We were not resentful because almost everybody was also suffering poverty. Throughout World War II we endured rationing of food and clothing. Rationing of petrol did not affect us because we did not own a car.

“We experienced hard times. Then the good times came where everybody owns a car, a television set, a refrigerator and a washing machine. We oldies see that the policies of the Green Party have already begun to lead us to hard times again.”

-

Each Friday the cream of your views on the news rises and we honour the voices that made the debate great. To boost your chances of being featured, please be pertinent, pithy and preferably make a point. Solid arguments, original ideas, sparkling prose, rapier wit and rhetorical flourishes may count in your favour. Civility is essential. Comments may be edited for length.