Leslie Cannold has had enough of being even-handed and presenting Both Sides Now. Now she’s cutting to the chase: what’s the right way to go? In Everyday Dilemmas, Dr Cannold brings her ethical training to your problems. Send your questions to letters@crikey.com.au with “Dear Leslie” in the subject line. She might even reply…
Dear Leslie,
Gallows being carried by Melbourne protesters in which an inflatable Premier was hung. Is this the free speech my father went to war to protect?
Carlton Old-Timer
Dear Old Timer,
The short answer to your question is “yes”. Effigy burning and hanging is an old and widespread practice, including in modern democracies. Unlike direct incitements to violence, which are included in the suite of lawful limits on free speech in a democracy, the symbolic abuse of a political enemy to ridicule and dishonour them — while on the outer edge of acceptable speech — has not been seen to cross the line.
Having said that, the rise of violent anti-democratic protest — including a direct attack on the US Capitol intended to disrupt the peaceful transition of power — should give pause to every protest and political leader in the country. In other words, if there was ever a time to vigorously police the boundaries between legitimate free speech and speech that crosses the line because it incites violence, that time is now.
Which was why I was pleased to see Liberal Upper House leader David Davis, an opponent of the government’s new pandemic law, lash his critique to a plea for protesters to remain peaceful. “I would encourage Victorians to fight on every level against [this] terrible pandemic bill … but they should make their views known in a peaceful and calm and sensible way.” Opposition Leader Matthew Guy also deserves praise for reinforcing proper democratic practice when he urged Victorians to take their frustrations out “at the ballot box.”
Dear Leslie,
We had friends drop by this weekend for a coffee that turned into dinner. During the meal, we got into a discussion about the morality of friends who’d refused vaccination. I said I found it selfish, but our friends said you had to consider the whole person before making that judgement. After all, they forgave us for eating meat.
It was almost an aside, but it still felt like a low blow. They know the health reasons behind our diet. But it’s been bothering me. I don’t know why.
Bewildered in Oakleigh
Dear Bewildered,
Because you were side swiped! Nothing like realising you’re being insulted — or at least pricked — ten minutes after it’s happened. If someone’s going to have a crack, they should at least give you a chance to respond.
You were also probably shocked to learn that these friends, and perhaps others in your social circle, are judging you. It’s confronting to be called selfish. Especially when those applying the label have no idea what you’ve been through and the reasons behind your choice. Even worse when, as in your case, you were unaware times had changed so much that what were once private culinary decisions now leave you exposed to social condemnation.
What now? Do you stand behind your judgment of others as selfish because they won’t get vaxxed? If so, you might need to take the negative judgment about your character based on your eating habits on the chin.
Or, having found such judgement superficial and unfair — one decision does not a selfish person make — do you think your condemnation of the unvaxxed as selfish might have been too hasty?
Consistency is a hallmark of morality. I wish you luck in getting your perspectives re-aligned.
Send your dilemmas to letters@crikey.com.au with “Dear Leslie” in the subject line and you could get a reply from Dr Cannold in this column. We reserve the right to edit letters for length and clarity.
Any harm done by eating meat is very indirect (and I’m vegetarian) whereas not being vaccinated can literally cause the death of people close to you. So it’s more selfish
Out of interest, which war(s) were fought to defend ‘freedom’ (of speech, movement etc). It seems these days that everyone has always been fighting for freedom.
I understood – from my grandpa who fought in it – that America’s entry into WW 2 was to preserve democracy and its values over facism, though of course that and all wars fought for numerous reasons. The institution of an office that protects democracy in Germany’s suggests they understood that to be at stake too and now don’t want their democratic system used to destroy democratic values again.
There is certain degree of historical revisionism – from multiple philosophical/ideological perspectives – regarding WW2 and its construction as a ‘good v evil’ battle (‘freedom v fascism’). The US only went to war after Pearl Harbour (and Germany declared war on the US because of its pact with Japan) and there were very strong isolationist interests in the US discouraging its involvement in the ‘European war’. (Of course, Joe Kennedy shot down his presidential aspirations with his tacit support for Hitler.)
But as you say, wars are fought for all sorts of reasons. It just seems that, at the moment at least, people are fighting for ‘freedom’ (without really knowing what they’re talking about – there is no such concept as absolute freedom, and never will be) – or against ‘fascism’ (a poorly understood term that ignores the fact that most iconic dictators are/were not ‘fascists’ in the correct sense of the term).
Yeah, all true but results of the Great War to End All Wars.
it should never have occurred and the damage inflicted on Enlightenment values was terminal.
I don’t think it was as simple as that. America entered the war in Europe with reluctance, and only after Germany declared war on America. Whilst Roosevelt made speeches condemning Hitler and Nazism, the American public and the democrat controlled government were against entering the war.
But the biggest myth is when people say ‘my grandfather fought to preserve free speech/stop Nazism/preserve democracy/whatever other thing I want to claim is most important now’. This is nonsense, and reading the memoirs of most ordinary people involved in the war makes that clear. The majority of men joined up because they were poor, because they were pressured into it, because they got to travel, because there was nothing else to do. Fascism, anti semitism, and eugenic beliefs were wide spread in Britain, America, and their allies, including Australia. There was very little overarching political or moral beliefs involved in the decision of people to join up, and a significant number of them probably had more in common with Nazis than they would ever admit after the war.
See Lennon’s quip – “fighting for peace is like fornicating for virginity”. (Please excuse Bowdlerization.)
Re the first dilemma, I’m wary of using “well, it’s always been done” as any sort of defence/argument. And a symbolic hanging goes further than “ridicule” or “dishonour”. An effigy in the stocks would have been more appropriate. I do think the three nooses (one for each of the cross benchers supporting the bill as I understand it) was an incitement to violence.
I agree that’s it’s line ball and reasonable people can disagree. I was surprised to find that historically it’s been seen to fall on the right side of the line. Having said that, I think we used to have a much more sticks and stones attitude to imagery and words that we now consider an incitement to violence or even.- and I very much worry about this – as violence itself.
Interesting ‘nudging’ to deflect from selfish Covid science deniers and confected Koch’ism of ‘freedom & liberty’. These are the basic elements observed round climate science denial and delays in environmental remedies, used with Covid, why (as reported by DeSmog UK in 2020)?
To reinforce the radical right libertarian basics or lines the sand for the future post Covid (if possible) when return to normal service is possible, i.e. avoid science, research and higher education while individuals demanding ‘freedom & liberty’ are unwitting agents of ‘freedom & liberty’ (from govt., regulation and taxes) for the top end of town.
Australian non science based narratives, informed like the US and UK (inspired by global warming), are again lagging more enlightened parts of the world experiencing a 4th wave with high levels of vaccination, but reintroducing sensible constraints and lockdowns for unvaccinated. As Austrian Chancellor Schellenberg complains:
‘“I don’t see why two-thirds should lose their freedom because one-third is dithering,” Schallenberg said. “For me, it is clear that there should be no lockdown for the vaccinated out of solidarity for the unvaccinated.”
Brutal!
I’m really enjoying this new series Leslie, long may it continue.
Thanks Knick, but gee, not trying to be brutal.
Kfix! darn u autocorrect!