Racists and Jihadis both have the right of free speech

One is in favour of speech for views one despises for otherwise one is not in favour of free speech.

Although Australian politics has been convulsed, quite literally, by issues revolving around free speech it is sad, indeed shocking, to see how many on both sides of the ideological spectrum do not defend the principle of free speech come what may.

Two recent events have brought this to relief, the first concerns the Left's response to the recent staging of racist and neo-fascist protests and the second to the Right's stoking of the Zaky Mallah affair.

Let us start with the Left.

The streets of Melbourne have borne witness to a series of childish obscenities whereby racists and neo-fascist demonstrators have been confronted by a coalition of left wing groups, largely Trotskyite and anarchist in composition, which have led to pitched battles between the two of them and the police.

A racist grouping, consisting of a neo-fascist presence, known as "Reclaim Australia," have organised to stage rallies across Australia claiming that Australia is undergoing a creeping Islamisation, among a number of other comically pathetic claims.

The real purpose behind these protests is the restoration of a racist, thoroughly socially conservative, white Australia that history has long passed by.

As noted a Left wing coalition was formed to organise counter rallies whenever the racist and neo-fascists gathered.

I attended one of the first planning meetings of the counter movement, and as it became clear to me that the purpose of the counter movement was to use force to break up the racist and neo-fascist protestors I withdrew my participation.

Why?

Because it is contrary to the principle of free speech to use force to set the bounds of permissible discourse in society.

Even racists, indeed neo-fascists, have the right to rally so long as they are only peacefully spewing their putrid bile.

It is said, to the contrary, that racist groups engage in violent acts, that indeed such acts of violence are an intrinsic part of their modus operandi and so these groups need to be confronted whenever they publicly emerge and gather.

Although it is indeed true that the neo-fascist component of the Reclaim Australia movement exhibits a cult of violence this still would not give one the right to use violence against them when such groups either alone or in coalition with more moderate racists peacefully rally with the intent only to air their views.

The same principle applies to the 1% motorcycle clubs that have, in my view justly, staged protests across Australia against various state government anti association laws and bills. Despite the fact that violence is an intrinsic part of the modus operandi of these biker clubs nobody on the Left has argued that they should be forcefully prevented from airing their views on laws or proposed legislation which affect them. Certainly none have attacked them when doing so.

Violent motorcycle clubs have the right to peacefully demonstrate and so do racists.

Some of the left wing rhetoric in favour of militant anti-fascism has bordered on the hyperbolic. It is almost as if the Panzers of the SS Liebstandarte Adolf Hitler Division are massing just beyond the Dandenong Ranges ready to swoop and smash the organised working class in what for the bourgeoisie of Toorak is a frightfully pre-revolutionary situation. It is not 1933 nor 1941 nor even the 1923 of the Beer Hall Putsch.

Many of the everyday participants of Reclaim Australia are lowly working class people, if not part of the urban and rural underclass, that have been hard hit by globalisation. They form the natural constituency of the Left and the communities from whence they hail should be reached out to. That is how a mass social movement against racism in favour of solidarity and mutual aid is built.

Those who engage in frivolous and pointless violence against the losers of globalisation are neither interested in these outlying working class communities nor in doing what it takes to build a mass movement that addresses their very real economic grievances.

The left wing counter rallies, furthermore, are counterproductive on tactical grounds.

The racist and neo-fascist groups are led by a small collection of buffoons. Their most significant problem, like their erstwhile enemies the jihadists, is their very extremism. They are marginalised and isolated. Left alone most people would not give them a second glance.

Their arguments are outlandishly absurd and widely seen as being so. Yet they have been given a national canvas three times running now because the scenes of violence provoke widespread media coverage and public commentary. Furthermore the violent counter rallies give the radical Right an argument where previously they had none, namely that of free speech.

For the racists and neo-fascists national exposure is golden, and the granting of it by the Left constitutes a significant victory. It is ironic indeed, despite the many Facebook memes lampooning the low education of the buffoons that lead these rallies that the intellectual sophisticates of the Left cannot see what the buffoons so obviously can.

Though many on the Left claim they are the victors they are surely the losers, as most who observe the obscenities tar both sides with the same violent brush. That for the Left is devastatingly bad, especially so as global capitalism faces its worse crisis since 1945.

The ultimate victors here are the established pillars of the conservative order.

What is interesting is how some of the organisers of the counter rallies have come to deny that their purpose is to use pre-emptive force. They are quoted as saying that the intent of the counter rallies has always been peaceful and defensive. This is not true, and I personally know it not to be true as stated above.

Why the denial? Simple. It is recognised that pre-emptive violence against protestors, no matter of what view, is opposed by mainstream Australia and is contrary to the Australian experience.

What of the second of our examples, that of the Right?

The Zaky Mallah affair, and Australia's existing sedition laws, shows how thin be the Right's commitment to free speech.

Let us assume the worst of Zaky Mallah. That is that he was a jihadist, is a jihadist, and used the bully pulpit of ABC Q&A to promote the jihadi worldview. That is to say he spoke in favour of radical Islamist ideology which included a generalised call for a jihad to set up an Islamic caliphate that covers the entire Muslim world.

That too would be free speech, and Mallah would have the right to air that view on the nation's public broadcaster.

So long as Zaky Mallah did not call for an immediate act of violence by those in actual possession of the means of murder against specific targets then, on grounds of free speech, even a call for jihad should be construed as permissible discourse.

Advocates of war and the use of offensive military firepower make arguments in the public sphere calling for the waging of warfare often indeed almost on a daily basis. Although one might strenuously object to these arguments, very few of us, including the most ardent pacifist, would argue that one cannot peacefully air a generalised argument calling for the waging of a war.

That applies no matter what type of war one is calling for; a war for democracy, a war for oil, a genocidal war, a war for God. The principle remains the same.

In 2005 the Howard government passed a number of sedition laws that restricted freedom of speech.

Andrew Lynch, Nicola McGarrity and Paul Williams in The Guardian wrote such laws"would be unthinkable, if not constitutionally impossible, in nations such as the US and Canada to restrict freedom of speech."

No party, such as the Liberal Party of Australia, that spuriously restricts freedom of speech through the promulgation and enforcement by the state of a law of sedition can remotely be said to be a liberal party.

Ironically enough these same laws define, in part, seditious intention, which is a criminal offence, to be the promotion of"feelings of ill-will or hostility between different groups so as to threaten the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth."

One could argue that racist and neo-fascist groups, such as the United Patriots Front and Reclaim Australia, fall under the ambit of this law. But notice the state does not act to enforce the law in this instance.

To deny others the freedom of speech under seditious intention, as so defined, whilst allowing racists that same freedom is to reserve a right to speak ill of wogs, kikes and niggers but not of white anglo-celtic society.

Such be state sanctioned racism, not just a denial of freedom speech.

The founder of modern anarchism, Mikhail Bakunin, in his Revolutionary Catechism of 1866, argued for "unlimited freedom of propaganda, speech, public or private assembly, with no other restraint than the natural salutary power of public opinion."

Yet Australia's anarchists have chosen to reject Bakunin's libertarian principle. Noam Chomsky, another noted anarchist activist, observed that "with regard to freedom of speech there are basically two positions: you defend it vigorously for views you hate, or you reject it and prefer Stalinist/fascist standards."

Australia's anarchists have chosen the fascist standards, which is both an irony and a pity.

Racists and Jihadis both have the right of free speech

One is in favour of speech for views one despises for otherwise one is not in favour of free speech.

Although Australian politics has been convulsed, quite literally, by issues revolving around free speech it is sad, indeed shocking, to see how many on both sides of the ideological spectrum do not defend the principle of free speech come what may.

Two recent events have brought this to relief, the first concerns the Left's response to the recent staging of racist and neo-fascist protests and the second to the Right's stoking of the Zaky Mallah affair.

Let us start with the Left.

The streets of Melbourne have borne witness to a series of childish obscenities whereby racists and neo-fascist demonstrators have been confronted by a coalition of left wing groups, largely Trotskyite and anarchist in composition, which have led to pitched battles between the two of them and the police.

A racist grouping, consisting of a neo-fascist presence, known as "Reclaim Australia," have organised to stage rallies across Australia claiming that Australia is undergoing a creeping Islamisation, among a number of other comically pathetic claims.

The real purpose behind these protests is the restoration of a racist, thoroughly socially conservative, white Australia that history has long passed by.

As noted a Left wing coalition was formed to organise counter rallies whenever the racist and neo-fascists gathered.

I attended one of the first planning meetings of the counter movement, and as it became clear to me that the purpose of the counter movement was to use force to break up the racist and neo-fascist protestors I withdrew my participation.

Why?

Because it is contrary to the principle of free speech to use force to set the bounds of permissible discourse in society.

Even racists, indeed neo-fascists, have the right to rally so long as they are only peacefully spewing their putrid bile.

It is said, to the contrary, that racist groups engage in violent acts, that indeed such acts of violence are an intrinsic part of their modus operandi and so these groups need to be confronted whenever they publicly emerge and gather.

Although it is indeed true that the neo-fascist component of the Reclaim Australia movement exhibits a cult of violence this still would not give one the right to use violence against them when such groups either alone or in coalition with more moderate racists peacefully rally with the intent only to air their views.

The same principle applies to the 1% motorcycle clubs that have, in my view justly, staged protests across Australia against various state government anti association laws and bills. Despite the fact that violence is an intrinsic part of the modus operandi of these biker clubs nobody on the Left has argued that they should be forcefully prevented from airing their views on laws or proposed legislation which affect them. Certainly none have attacked them when doing so.

Violent motorcycle clubs have the right to peacefully demonstrate and so do racists.

Some of the left wing rhetoric in favour of militant anti-fascism has bordered on the hyperbolic. It is almost as if the Panzers of the SS Liebstandarte Adolf Hitler Division are massing just beyond the Dandenong Ranges ready to swoop and smash the organised working class in what for the bourgeoisie of Toorak is a frightfully pre-revolutionary situation. It is not 1933 nor 1941 nor even the 1923 of the Beer Hall Putsch.

Many of the everyday participants of Reclaim Australia are lowly working class people, if not part of the urban and rural underclass, that have been hard hit by globalisation. They form the natural constituency of the Left and the communities from whence they hail should be reached out to. That is how a mass social movement against racism in favour of solidarity and mutual aid is built.

Those who engage in frivolous and pointless violence against the losers of globalisation are neither interested in these outlying working class communities nor in doing what it takes to build a mass movement that addresses their very real economic grievances.

The left wing counter rallies, furthermore, are counterproductive on tactical grounds.

The racist and neo-fascist groups are led by a small collection of buffoons. Their most significant problem, like their erstwhile enemies the jihadists, is their very extremism. They are marginalised and isolated. Left alone most people would not give them a second glance.

Their arguments are outlandishly absurd and widely seen as being so. Yet they have been given a national canvas three times running now because the scenes of violence provoke widespread media coverage and public commentary. Furthermore the violent counter rallies give the radical Right an argument where previously they had none, namely that of free speech.

For the racists and neo-fascists national exposure is golden, and the granting of it by the Left constitutes a significant victory. It is ironic indeed, despite the many Facebook memes lampooning the low education of the buffoons that lead these rallies that the intellectual sophisticates of the Left cannot see what the buffoons so obviously can.

Though many on the Left claim they are the victors they are surely the losers, as most who observe the obscenities tar both sides with the same violent brush. That for the Left is devastatingly bad, especially so as global capitalism faces its worse crisis since 1945.

The ultimate victors here are the established pillars of the conservative order.

What is interesting is how some of the organisers of the counter rallies have come to deny that their purpose is to use pre-emptive force. They are quoted as saying that the intent of the counter rallies has always been peaceful and defensive. This is not true, and I personally know it not to be true as stated above.

Why the denial? Simple. It is recognised that pre-emptive violence against protestors, no matter of what view, is opposed by mainstream Australia and is contrary to the Australian experience.

What of the second of our examples, that of the Right?

The Zaky Mallah affair, and Australia's existing sedition laws, shows how thin be the Right's commitment to free speech.

Let us assume the worst of Zaky Mallah. That is that he was a jihadist, is a jihadist, and used the bully pulpit of ABC Q&A to promote the jihadi worldview. That is to say he spoke in favour of radical Islamist ideology which included a generalised call for a jihad to set up an Islamic caliphate that covers the entire Muslim world.

That too would be free speech, and Mallah would have the right to air that view on the nation's public broadcaster.

So long as Zaky Mallah did not call for an immediate act of violence by those in actual possession of the means of murder against specific targets then, on grounds of free speech, even a call for jihad should be construed as permissible discourse.

Advocates of war and the use of offensive military firepower make arguments in the public sphere calling for the waging of warfare often indeed almost on a daily basis. Although one might strenuously object to these arguments, very few of us, including the most ardent pacifist, would argue that one cannot peacefully air a generalised argument calling for the waging of a war.

That applies no matter what type of war one is calling for; a war for democracy, a war for oil, a genocidal war, a war for God. The principle remains the same.

In 2005 the Howard government passed a number of sedition laws that restricted freedom of speech.

Andrew Lynch, Nicola McGarrity and Paul Williams in The Guardian wrote such laws"would be unthinkable, if not constitutionally impossible, in nations such as the US and Canada to restrict freedom of speech."

No party, such as the Liberal Party of Australia, that spuriously restricts freedom of speech through the promulgation and enforcement by the state of a law of sedition can remotely be said to be a liberal party.

Ironically enough these same laws define, in part, seditious intention, which is a criminal offence, to be the promotion of"feelings of ill-will or hostility between different groups so as to threaten the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth."

One could argue that racist and neo-fascist groups, such as the United Patriots Front and Reclaim Australia, fall under the ambit of this law. But notice the state does not act to enforce the law in this instance.

To deny others the freedom of speech under seditious intention, as so defined, whilst allowing racists that same freedom is to reserve a right to speak ill of wogs, kikes and niggers but not of white anglo-celtic society.

Such be state sanctioned racism, not just a denial of freedom speech.

The founder of modern anarchism, Mikhail Bakunin, in his Revolutionary Catechism of 1866, argued for "unlimited freedom of propaganda, speech, public or private assembly, with no other restraint than the natural salutary power of public opinion."

Yet Australia's anarchists have chosen to reject Bakunin's libertarian principle. Noam Chomsky, another noted anarchist activist, observed that "with regard to freedom of speech there are basically two positions: you defend it vigorously for views you hate, or you reject it and prefer Stalinist/fascist standards."

Australia's anarchists have chosen the fascist standards, which is both an irony and a pity.