The leftoid notion of tolerance is rubbish and it underpins `multiculturalism’. Sod that cretinous notion of tolerance - Sod, in that case, tolerance, I like being intolerant, intolerance is good, and intolerance is a an excellent habit to acquire.
Hypcorisy and Cowardice PartI was a preamble to something, else, in view of Bracks’ stalinist `blasphemy law’, which is to be superceded to the even more thorough `Bill of Rights’ - should it be passed. Some points raised in the preamble are central to the sound notion of tolerance:
The lie, freedom of speech is universal. Freedom of speech is not universal. Economic liberty and the great English tradition of the Rule of Common Law actually made freedom of speech possible, it is why from the end of the 16th century Oxbridge colleges advanced in leaps and boundss in science as against their European counterparts. It was the realisation, due to Common Law, freedom in scholarship nor science nor opinion posed a threat, commerce, and free association, are not threats to, in particular, govt., unlike on the continent. On the continent, and the Western European Press are in fact not free to publish, their articles are censored by the European absolutist socialisto govts. There is no freedom of the press in Western Europe. Freedom of speech and not just the press, is grounded in economic libery, beginning with uncrompromised property rights, including in oneself, and upheld and advanced by common law.
Do the leftoids who spout both platitudes make good what they promise, to fight for your freedom to say what you will, right or wrong? No, and it is pointed, for those who constantly spout contradict themsleves thoroughly. In the early 80?s , while spouting those platitudes, they leant their hand to enforce political correctness. Contrary to a gentleman who, a number of years ago, wrote in Quadrant, political correctness is annoying but harmless. No, it never was harmless, it was an insiidious effort to undermine sound advance in the humanities and the sciences. Professor Blainey is living proof of, the coup-de-tat against him by the student union and a number of tenured professors and lecturers,political correctness is not harmless. Worse, if he made the speech on immigration and multiculturalism today in Victoria rather than then, he would not be merely ousted from the University by leftoid thugs, he would risk being arraigned before the witch-sniffing court and face the prospect of being jailed by, Szoke, May Helou, Diane Sisely, and Judge Michael ?Vyshinski? Higgins.
One of the excellent characteristics of common law is, when the actions of two entities cross, say two neighbours or two companies,the reason for the crossed action can be rather neatly identified and an elegant theorem formulated which both parties can readily recognize is just. It holds for criminal cases, though those days are now long gone when even the criminal recognised `fair cop guv.? The overthrow of the rule of law, which has matched the onward onslaught of leviathan has made that a thing of the past.
One of the upshots of economic liberty, advance and, Rule of Common Law is, next to the fact actions so informed do not threaten peace nor do opinions, thus civilised men and women can abide of others a rather extroadinary array of things which are not tolerated in primitive tribal societies, and not under socialism and Islam either. The clerics( of the major denominations in Australia) oppose common law because,as one senior cleric said, it is a-moral, it serves no higher moral ends and doesn?t serve `social justice?. That oxymoron is all of a-piece with `higher moral ends, the bullshit of protean dictators. To the contrary, in that case, it is highly moral, it entails not only self-restraint, reliability of action and so forth, it entails tolerance, and common law is the source of the English sensibility called tolerance, and it serves the dignity of the individual exceedingly well, whereas tibalism and its other forms of socialism and Islamic theocracy do not at all.
So, tolerance is not universal, it is due to traditions which are superior to many others, common law, which is grounded in absolute property rights, inlcuding in onself, and thus covers freedom of contract. That is the root of `defamation rights’ too. Tolerance is not a `natural disposition’, it is not a sentiment, it is generated out of traditions which developed over centuries. Freedom of speech and tolerance of differing opinions is thus restricted by the very reasons for the generation of tolerance. What does the argument entail but, tolerance prevails between those who observe the same and similar traditions. There-in is one of the many falsehoods of the continental notion of Human Rights, it divroces rights from property and freedom of contract and depicts as a condecension by absolutist govt., in relaity politiicans and bureaucrats, as compensation for coercive rule. This underpins, until since Peel to the present, the major divide between Britain and common law countries and the continent, the individual on the continent is,effectively the property of `govt.’ and rights are rights of govt. over every individual. This distinction traces back to Henry II and why also the Catholic Church opposed the Ruleof Common Law and Henry’s innovation, the Sovereign/Executive shall be constrained by Common Law, will observe it, be guided by it, and that applied to taxation also. Until Sir Robert Peel, the Executive had no a-priori (divine) right to raise tax, a tax had to be passed by Parlaiment and on the basis of, it is restricted, and to be terminated. The reason: because taxation is sequestration of private property and thus violated fundamnetal prinicples of common law. Tax measures were not absolute `rights’ of `govt.’, not a `power’, were not permanent and raised only for emergency purposes, the, that is, only reason for what is falsley called govt., warfare.
Against the continent, the notion law is made, whether by a King or a parlaimentary excutive is foreign to common law, as also the notion of Judge made law , contrary to Justice Kirby whose view of ( Judge made ) law is nothing less than totalitarian. Kirby has damned himslef enough, his last effort, only the Consitution is a barrier to him and others seizing absolute power. Can Kirby’s position be more truthfully stated: he proposes the judicaiary commit treason and, besides ,effectively, the usurpation of parliament, treason as judiciary overthrowing the only extant tradition law and bastion of liberty , Common Law? Is it too harsh a word, treason? Well, that is exactly what the Bracks Junta is overtly about, treason, the B.o.R., will be the completion of their aim to overthrow the Rule of Common Law and the usurpation of the function of parlaiment, with the courts reduced to enforcers of the Junta’s many totatalitarian decrees. That is not law, that is criminal lawlessness paraded as law and that, Kirby, is what you too propose, but exercised by judges instead.
There is no doubt, State’s and Federal Consitutions have freed the judges of the restraints of common law, the articles detailing `powers’, inclusive of taxation, as some a-priori right of `govt’ over the property of others has exactly that force. Such articles have also loosed polticians from the restraints of common law, the original function of parlaiment as a court of common law testing actions of the executive and proposed actions according to principles of common law recast to the absolutist reality of executive and parliaments of Europe. It cannot be emphasized enough, the framers of State’s and Federal Constitutions took much of their inspiration from the continentals’ pseudo-philosophy of law and `govt.’, restrained in their eagerness only by the reality of common law and, then, conventions.The notion, for example, parlaiment must do the will of the people, as inscribed in tiles in the foyer of the Victorian Parliament House is a pin of specious special pleading for absolutist `govt’. `The will of the people’, as so much gnostic metaphysical rubbish in any case,is nothing more than the tyranny of a few relying on numbers tot, well precisley, to fly in the face of common law. Porectionism, and the IRC are nothiing more than gangsterism upheld only by the extent politicians and bureaucrats and judges weild real coercive power and indefiance of the Rule of Common Law.
No, Peter Costello, regulation is not the Rule of Law, it is a pin of absolutism. The tax regimes of each tier of govt. are a shocking violation of the rule of law on a large number of counts and it shows up, for example, in the ATO as effectively a secret police state goon squad.
Those of common law tradition are tolerant of others precisely because, their abolsute property rights are advanced through common law, and, in the special case for the use of coercive violence, advanced by the arrest, trial and execution of dangerous criminals, and of those who would overthrow the basis of liberty. Tolerance does not extend to usurpers of the very traditions in which freedom is grounded. It cannot be tolerated, for example, a large number of immigrants be let in who are, bascially , hostile to the rule of law and seek to overthrow it with something else.
Economic freedom and Common Law are thus a major pin of tolerance. The expansion of Leviathan since the end of WWII through the `welfare state ‘ to the all consuming mnonster that it is today illuminates the point well.The Coalition Parties and the ALP have done three things: fuelled dependency of rather many on Govt., establishing a large voting block which frees them to break common law and overthrow property rights. It comples many by the use of coerion to pay for things which they might not otherwise do volitionally. The `welfare state’ buries those in genuine need of ( volitionally given charity) under the weight of sheer numbers and with that, the help they might actually need is not necessarily forthcoming at all or, at best,inadequately. The `social welfare state ‘ has indeuced many to deliberately become mendicants,as the `sole parents’ pension has’ - viz, the sheer numbers of `mothers’ who deliberately got pregnant as teenagers to do just that.So: others have their property stolen by polticians to pay for stupid girls and their bastards, and/ or provide them abortions and so forth. That strips property off others who have their own interests to keep, including families. It forces many to fund that, even though, they would not do so.
`Welfare’ is also argued by the Coalition, not just the ALP, as some apriori `right’ govts. must enforce, and do so by overthrowing property rights and thus common law. It is not `tolerance’ which decides some to be tolerant of the `Welafre State’, it is the sheer violence of police state coercion by whih they are forced to abide things which they do not tolerate and would not tolerate of themsleves nor their own children. The trouble is, the constantly growing Leviathan has forced many who have been independent onto some level of dependency on govt. Leviathan corrupts civilised morals precislery because the weight and increasing weight of Leviathan drags so many down to their break-even point and worse. It is understandable why protectionist farmers, for example, don’t argue against welfarism, they cannot afford what would be the true charge of hypocrisy. On the other hand, they are hypocites: they whine they should not be taxed heavily while supporting measures which can only be met by hight tax exactions, and thus, socialist `farmers’ are really doing nothing more, out of their own interests, supporting their own impoverishment due to all consuming govt.
The welfare state, taken with protectionism, fiat ( forgers’) money, taxes, regulation, cripples the capacity of individuals and their families to order and secure their own priorities, as they are forced to support increasing hordes of the permanently indigent, and the demands of those who otherwise can look after themselves. To repeat, and those in genuine need of charity, inlcuding for medical services miss out or are buried in the morass of permanent mendicancy.The `unemployable youf’ is not a fiction. It has done worse than that, as Theodore Dalrymple regaled Spectator readers over, the Welfare State has advanced the mores of primitive savages, has ensured large numbers do not acquire civilised habits and observe civilised conventions. That is intolerable, and the man in the street would not, if free, not tolerate savages, savgery and the cultivation of svages through the welfare state. It is not tolerance which makes the man in the street tolerate the intolerable, it is coeriive plice state measures, inlcusive of `wlefare’, which forces them to have to endure the intolerable.It’s worse, though, since the 70’s, `welfare’ has been converted into automatic `rights’, and many who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of `welfare’, including `govt. schooling’ are now depicted as `victims of social injustice’.
“Victims”- aborigines, women, children of modest income earning parents , and any one who can be herded into a subgroup which can be depicted as a victim. Common Law has to be overthrown compensate all these victims of , well, victimhood. Had a bad childhood, and commit murder? Never mind, the judge blubs tears and agrees, the murderer is more vicitm than the murdered victim, the murder has done something horrible but, it’s o.k., the `govt.’ will `rehabilitate them’ upon which, after a few months in `prison’, they are released and commit another murder. Never mind, the now double murderer is still a victim and can still be `rehabilitated’. The `tolerance’ of socialist politicians, bureaucrats and judges, for the intolerable has worn out the tolerance of the man in the street, for murderers and the socialist politicians, bureaucrats and judges, more so because, depsite the claims of Bracks, Hulls, Holding and Nixon, under this Stalinist Junta, violent crime has increased, it is now unsafe to wlak in many suburbs of Melbourne. Some bedrock criminal applications of prinicples of common law have been overthrown and Melbournians are no longer for only the execution of violent criminals but for the execution of those who are responsible for this parlous state, the commie Junta and its politically correct `servants’. There is now no tolerance whatsover of the man in the street for any consideration of dangerous criminals whatsoever.
They, the man in the street is right to be intolerant, he is the one who faces the prospect he might be slayed, bashed, raped. His common law freedoms and property rights are overthrown while Mlebourne is made safe for violent criminals. That is why violent crimes are on the increase: the intolerable is made a virtue by the bloody Stalinist Junta and Judges of Victoria.