lots of people have racist, or homophobic, or sexist, or anti-bird
attitudes, to a virulent degree in some cases, does that entitle
people to write columns expressing those hatreds? popularity is also
no indicator of scientific validity.
well, i guess they do - until they incite someone to inflict violence
against those groups.
devine was advocating lynchings. in all cases that's wrong, and
let alone the fact that there's a royal commission into these matters
which will find out the definitive causes and actions to take. devine
has completely bypassed this process -- and what makes her an expert
in any of the matters? in fact she has no expertise whatsoever. she's
a dilettante using a tragic disaster to stir up hatred against people
against which she already has an a priori axe to grind.
in other words, she's got no standing on the matter at all.
even steve price (melbourne shock jock) told everyone to take a cold
shower on the matter. too bloody right. let's find out the facts
last, advocating that people boycott reading a columnist isn't
suppressing their freedom of speech. it's using the power of the
2009/2/19 Robert Inglis <>:
> So much for:
> - freedom of expression;
> - freedom of speech:
> - freedom of the press;
> - listening to "the other point of view";
> - listening to a diversity of opinion.
let x=x - http://crazymcphee.net/x/
xray dubs - http://autonomous.org/music/
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)