You're not welcome in Australia.
September 1, 2017 6:09 AM Subscribe
A prominent anti-vaccination speaker has been denied a visa to enter Australia. "These people who are telling kids, telling parents that their kids shouldn't be vaccinated are dangerous people," said Immigration Minister Peter Dutton. He previously refused a visa to person Chris Brown, based on his domestic violence record. Applicants for a visa to enter Australia are subject to a character test.
Good for them. I would have no problem with any country banning someone who went around telling parents to give poison to their children, and anti-vaxxers are promoting a similar or potentially worse level of harm.
posted by Halloween Jack at 6:18 AM on September 1, 2017 [14 favorites]
posted by Halloween Jack at 6:18 AM on September 1, 2017 [14 favorites]
Don't be fooled by this stopped clock being right for once. Dutton is a shitstain and that stain won't come out of the Liberal Party (which in Australia is conservative).
posted by Talez at 6:26 AM on September 1, 2017 [18 favorites]
posted by Talez at 6:26 AM on September 1, 2017 [18 favorites]
Given what goes on with Australia's Family Court system, one abuser more or less isn't going to make a difference. Same goes for anti-vaxxers. They aren't going to defeat either catagory with a couple visa denials.
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 6:33 AM on September 1, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 6:33 AM on September 1, 2017 [1 favorite]
Dutton is one of the incredibly dangerous politicians in the bunch of Orbán Viktor, Xi Jinping, Mike Pence, Vladimir Putin, and the entire UK Conservative Party. The reason isn't that they're against my ideology, but that those people's success will lead to the eradication of the ability and option of having your own ideology.
He's not merely a stopped clock. He knows exactly what he's doing.
posted by runcifex at 6:34 AM on September 1, 2017 [8 favorites]
He's not merely a stopped clock. He knows exactly what he's doing.
posted by runcifex at 6:34 AM on September 1, 2017 [8 favorites]
Meanwhile, Laurie Penny is speaking in Melbourne. I'm surprised that a right-wing country, governed by the Murdoch press* as Australia is, gave her a visa.
* in the national paper of record, The Australian, “Cultural Marxism” is actually A Thing, and climate change isn't.
posted by acb at 6:41 AM on September 1, 2017 [1 favorite]
* in the national paper of record, The Australian, “Cultural Marxism” is actually A Thing, and climate change isn't.
posted by acb at 6:41 AM on September 1, 2017 [1 favorite]
Meanwhile, Laurie Penny is speaking in Melbourne. I'm surprised that a right-wing country, governed by the Murdoch press* as Australia is, gave her a visa.
She's all too eager to humanize Yiannopolis and his ilk so I really think that says more about her than about Australia's visa-granting entity.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:05 AM on September 1, 2017 [3 favorites]
She's all too eager to humanize Yiannopolis and his ilk so I really think that says more about her than about Australia's visa-granting entity.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:05 AM on September 1, 2017 [3 favorites]
one abuser more or less isn't going to make a difference
Um.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:07 AM on September 1, 2017 [10 favorites]
Um.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:07 AM on September 1, 2017 [10 favorites]
I tried to frame this post objectively. Peter is responsible for multiple human rights violations. Imprisoning children, he's ok with that. Let me cite a conversation between Trump and Turnbull:
Trump: Why haven't you let them out? Why have you not let them into your society?
Turnbull: Okay, I will explain why. It is not because they are bad people. It is because in order to stop people smugglers, we had to deprive them of the product.
So we said if you try to come to Australia by boat, even if we think you are the best person in the world, even if you are a Nobel Prize-winning genius, we will not let you in. Because the problem with the people —
Trump: That is a good idea. We should do that too. You are worse than I am.
You are worse on immigration than Donald Trump, according to Donald Trump. Which doesn't mean much, but it's coming from the guy that wouldn't automatically denounce nazis.
I do like this decision. I think it's right. The haunted clock in the dusty mansion kills every hour though, not just when we like it.
posted by adept256 at 7:15 AM on September 1, 2017 [3 favorites]
Trump: Why haven't you let them out? Why have you not let them into your society?
Turnbull: Okay, I will explain why. It is not because they are bad people. It is because in order to stop people smugglers, we had to deprive them of the product.
So we said if you try to come to Australia by boat, even if we think you are the best person in the world, even if you are a Nobel Prize-winning genius, we will not let you in. Because the problem with the people —
Trump: That is a good idea. We should do that too. You are worse than I am.
You are worse on immigration than Donald Trump, according to Donald Trump. Which doesn't mean much, but it's coming from the guy that wouldn't automatically denounce nazis.
I do like this decision. I think it's right. The haunted clock in the dusty mansion kills every hour though, not just when we like it.
posted by adept256 at 7:15 AM on September 1, 2017 [3 favorites]
The trouble with character tests to enter a country (just as a tourist?) is that once they become normalized they might be turned on you. The people in power now won't be in a few years. The whole idea is creepy and totalitarian to me, just like censoring porn.
posted by Bee'sWing at 7:23 AM on September 1, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by Bee'sWing at 7:23 AM on September 1, 2017 [2 favorites]
It's not a character test. He's promoting dangerous behaviour and his presence here would place our community at an increased risk. At least, that feels different to me.
posted by Peter B-S at 7:28 AM on September 1, 2017 [6 favorites]
posted by Peter B-S at 7:28 AM on September 1, 2017 [6 favorites]
The people in power now won't be in a few years. The whole idea is creepy and totalitarian to me, just like censoring porn.
The next government is almost certain to be a Labor one (i.e., right-of-centre-left), and less prone to the spasms of right-wing culture-war ideology that wrack the Liberal Party and its fellow travellers. Though the one after next may well be a Liberal Party taken over from within by the short-lived “Australian Conservatives” movement, and thus somewhere between Trump and Orban/Netanyahu in temperament. So, yes.
Australia doesn't have a tradition of codified civil rights; there's no bill of rights and nothing like the EU Convention of Human Rights. Human rights in Australia basically emerge informally from the “larrikin spirit”, the much-vaunted convict legacy of taking the piss out of pompous authority and the local analogue of “common sense” conservatism. This is, of course, something that works best if you're a traditionally masculine white guy, or otherwise have a good reserve of reputation to draw on.
posted by acb at 7:31 AM on September 1, 2017 [4 favorites]
The next government is almost certain to be a Labor one (i.e., right-of-centre-left), and less prone to the spasms of right-wing culture-war ideology that wrack the Liberal Party and its fellow travellers. Though the one after next may well be a Liberal Party taken over from within by the short-lived “Australian Conservatives” movement, and thus somewhere between Trump and Orban/Netanyahu in temperament. So, yes.
Australia doesn't have a tradition of codified civil rights; there's no bill of rights and nothing like the EU Convention of Human Rights. Human rights in Australia basically emerge informally from the “larrikin spirit”, the much-vaunted convict legacy of taking the piss out of pompous authority and the local analogue of “common sense” conservatism. This is, of course, something that works best if you're a traditionally masculine white guy, or otherwise have a good reserve of reputation to draw on.
posted by acb at 7:31 AM on September 1, 2017 [4 favorites]
"These people who are telling kids, telling parents that police are murdering unarmed Black people are dangerous people."
"These people who are telling kids, telling parents that unions can make them happier and healthier are dangerous people."
"These people who are telling kids, telling parents that capitalism is unjust are dangerous people."
"These people who are telling kids, telling parents that abortion is a human right are dangerous people."
posted by anotherpanacea at 7:39 AM on September 1, 2017 [4 favorites]
"These people who are telling kids, telling parents that unions can make them happier and healthier are dangerous people."
"These people who are telling kids, telling parents that capitalism is unjust are dangerous people."
"These people who are telling kids, telling parents that abortion is a human right are dangerous people."
posted by anotherpanacea at 7:39 AM on September 1, 2017 [4 favorites]
He's promoting dangerous behaviour and his presence here would place our community at an increased risk.
My worry is that once it becomes normalized with popular targets, like "let's keep out Scientologists, they're a cult," that it will become "let's keep out Falun Gong, because China is an important trading partner."
posted by Bee'sWing at 7:40 AM on September 1, 2017 [2 favorites]
My worry is that once it becomes normalized with popular targets, like "let's keep out Scientologists, they're a cult," that it will become "let's keep out Falun Gong, because China is an important trading partner."
posted by Bee'sWing at 7:40 AM on September 1, 2017 [2 favorites]
I'm totally in favor of this one instance!
I'm totally against doing this at all in the abstract!
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 7:42 AM on September 1, 2017 [18 favorites]
I'm totally against doing this at all in the abstract!
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 7:42 AM on September 1, 2017 [18 favorites]
There is overwhelming medical and scientific consensus that anti-vaxxers harm our community. In every example of yours, anotherpanacea, as I see it, the consensus goes the other way, for varying values of consensus. Maybe I'm missing something.
posted by Peter B-S at 7:56 AM on September 1, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by Peter B-S at 7:56 AM on September 1, 2017 [2 favorites]
Policing ideas is a dangerous practice.
posted by Bee'sWing at 7:58 AM on September 1, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by Bee'sWing at 7:58 AM on September 1, 2017 [1 favorite]
If anyone wonders why I used that adjective to describe Chris Brown, 'person' was the kindest. What else I could describe them as would not meet the high standards of metafilter. I am conscious that I should meet that standard and accept it.
posted by adept256 at 8:01 AM on September 1, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by adept256 at 8:01 AM on September 1, 2017 [2 favorites]
I don't like the character test. I destest Dutton and the human rights abuses our government is almost wholly responsible for. I'm not condoning this entirely, but we do police ideas here. I think this slope looks a whole lot more slippery to some than it does to me.
posted by Peter B-S at 8:02 AM on September 1, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by Peter B-S at 8:02 AM on September 1, 2017 [1 favorite]
Policing ideas is a dangerous practice.
It's not ideas that are being policed here, but behaviour. An anti-vaccination speaker has been denied entrance into Australia because he was going to be giving lectures about his views, which are demonstrably false. Freedom of speech doesn't extend to lies, so he can't claim that the purpose of his visit is protected by laws guaranteeing the right to free speech, and it is therefore appropriate to refuse to allow him into the country. If Australia was demanding that every visitor to the country renounce all their anti-vaccination views, that would be another matter, but in this case it was about blocking the entrance of one person who planned to broadcast his baseless claims for public consumption, and I find that decision to be a reasonable one that doesn't contravene the right to free speech or autonomy.
Canada has refused to allow members of the Westboro Baptist Church to cross the Canadian border because their intention was to picket a specific funeral, which is harassment rather than legitimate free speech, and I think again that it was a justifiable ruling on the part of the Canadian government. Several years ago a certain misogynist came to Ontario to give lectures on his ideas to groups of men who would be buying tickets to hear him. I didn't sign the petition asking that he be prevented from entering the country for that reason, as I thought it was a legitimate use of free speech, but I do think it would have been reasonable to deny him entrance given that he is a self-confessed rapist (he describes incidents in his books in which he crosses the line of consent) and has been known to dox and harass women who speak out against him.
I get very impatient with people who start carrying on about freedom of speech when any effort at all is made to limit the damage done by those who embrace harmful ideologies. Freedom of speech isn't unlimited. There are legitimate ways to contain the behaviour of those who are spreading lies or who threaten or harm others, and any responsible society needs to practice such measures and take steps to combat and contain lies and hate speech if they're not to become a Nazi Germany, a Taliban-led Afghanistan, or a apartheid-era South Africa.
posted by orange swan at 8:32 AM on September 1, 2017 [36 favorites]
It's not ideas that are being policed here, but behaviour. An anti-vaccination speaker has been denied entrance into Australia because he was going to be giving lectures about his views, which are demonstrably false. Freedom of speech doesn't extend to lies, so he can't claim that the purpose of his visit is protected by laws guaranteeing the right to free speech, and it is therefore appropriate to refuse to allow him into the country. If Australia was demanding that every visitor to the country renounce all their anti-vaccination views, that would be another matter, but in this case it was about blocking the entrance of one person who planned to broadcast his baseless claims for public consumption, and I find that decision to be a reasonable one that doesn't contravene the right to free speech or autonomy.
Canada has refused to allow members of the Westboro Baptist Church to cross the Canadian border because their intention was to picket a specific funeral, which is harassment rather than legitimate free speech, and I think again that it was a justifiable ruling on the part of the Canadian government. Several years ago a certain misogynist came to Ontario to give lectures on his ideas to groups of men who would be buying tickets to hear him. I didn't sign the petition asking that he be prevented from entering the country for that reason, as I thought it was a legitimate use of free speech, but I do think it would have been reasonable to deny him entrance given that he is a self-confessed rapist (he describes incidents in his books in which he crosses the line of consent) and has been known to dox and harass women who speak out against him.
I get very impatient with people who start carrying on about freedom of speech when any effort at all is made to limit the damage done by those who embrace harmful ideologies. Freedom of speech isn't unlimited. There are legitimate ways to contain the behaviour of those who are spreading lies or who threaten or harm others, and any responsible society needs to practice such measures and take steps to combat and contain lies and hate speech if they're not to become a Nazi Germany, a Taliban-led Afghanistan, or a apartheid-era South Africa.
posted by orange swan at 8:32 AM on September 1, 2017 [36 favorites]
The trouble with character tests to enter a country (just as a tourist?) is that once they become normalized they might be turned on you. The people in power now won't be in a few years. The whole idea is creepy and totalitarian to me, just like censoring porn.
The US has a character test for entering on a tourist waiver, let alone a visa (not by that label, I think). The UK has the same thing under the label "not conducive to the public good" (see Martha Stewart, Tyler the Creator).
posted by the agents of KAOS at 9:24 AM on September 1, 2017
The US has a character test for entering on a tourist waiver, let alone a visa (not by that label, I think). The UK has the same thing under the label "not conducive to the public good" (see Martha Stewart, Tyler the Creator).
posted by the agents of KAOS at 9:24 AM on September 1, 2017
orange swan: Freedom of speech doesn't extend to lies
This. Or, stated another way, freedom of speech is not freedom from responsibility for what you say.
It seems that the US is alone in its' "absolute" position on free speech (the 1st Amendment), and in thinking that it's desirable that just about anyone can say just about anything.
Canada and other countries have free speech AND laws against hate speech. They're not incompatible, nor do they have any real limiting effect on responsible discourse, as far as I can tell.
posted by Artful Codger at 10:04 AM on September 1, 2017 [7 favorites]
This. Or, stated another way, freedom of speech is not freedom from responsibility for what you say.
It seems that the US is alone in its' "absolute" position on free speech (the 1st Amendment), and in thinking that it's desirable that just about anyone can say just about anything.
Canada and other countries have free speech AND laws against hate speech. They're not incompatible, nor do they have any real limiting effect on responsible discourse, as far as I can tell.
posted by Artful Codger at 10:04 AM on September 1, 2017 [7 favorites]
"It's not ideas that are being policed here, but behaviour. An anti-vaccination speaker has been denied entrance into Australia because he was going to be giving lectures about his views, which are demonstrably false. "This line of thinking is utterly fucking terrifying for how badly it gets wrong something that is so desperately important, particularly now. The 'behavior' aspects of giving lectures are so banal and and normal they should be obviously absurd to ban, hell I even get paid by governments to perform them. What separates this man's lectures from the encouraged ones I give are all about the ideas he has and the contents of the speech he intends to deliver. There are strong and reasonable arguments to make about how some ideas are so destructive and virulent that they shouldn't be allowed to be expressed, and that laws like the German Volksverhetzung can make sense, but lets be honest here about what we're talking about. This is a prior restraint on speech and a fire that shouldn't be played with lightly.
posted by Blasdelb at 10:09 AM on September 1, 2017 [2 favorites]
Good for them. I would have no problem with any country banning someone who went around telling parents to give poison to their children, and anti-vaxxers are promoting a similar or potentially worse level of harm.
they are also promoting harm on a societal level and I think it a govt's responsibility to protect its citizens on that front
posted by supermedusa at 10:10 AM on September 1, 2017 [6 favorites]
they are also promoting harm on a societal level and I think it a govt's responsibility to protect its citizens on that front
posted by supermedusa at 10:10 AM on September 1, 2017 [6 favorites]
Freedom of speech doesn't extend to lies
What? Sure it does. Who decides what is a lie? I would be in favor of charging an anti -vaxer with manslaughter if you could determine that they caused a child's death, but prior restraint on their speech? No.
posted by Bee'sWing at 10:20 AM on September 1, 2017 [1 favorite]
What? Sure it does. Who decides what is a lie? I would be in favor of charging an anti -vaxer with manslaughter if you could determine that they caused a child's death, but prior restraint on their speech? No.
posted by Bee'sWing at 10:20 AM on September 1, 2017 [1 favorite]
Australia doesn't have a "freedom of speech" law that remotely resembles the USA's first amendment. There is an implied freedom of political communication, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't extend to "giving bad medical advice."
Slippery slope etc. arguments may well be valid here, but Australia isn't violating any of its own principles by saying "we're not welcoming people who are coming here for the purpose of undermining public health and safety."
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 10:28 AM on September 1, 2017 [15 favorites]
Slippery slope etc. arguments may well be valid here, but Australia isn't violating any of its own principles by saying "we're not welcoming people who are coming here for the purpose of undermining public health and safety."
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 10:28 AM on September 1, 2017 [15 favorites]
This is a prior restraint on speech and a fire that shouldn't be played with lightly.
Good thing that nobody is doing so. Instead, they're rightfully pointing out that the anti-vaccination movement is a serious threat to public health, and as such should not be condoned.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:29 AM on September 1, 2017 [4 favorites]
Good thing that nobody is doing so. Instead, they're rightfully pointing out that the anti-vaccination movement is a serious threat to public health, and as such should not be condoned.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:29 AM on September 1, 2017 [4 favorites]
Automobiles and fast food are a serious threat to public health. Should they be banned?
posted by Bee'sWing at 10:32 AM on September 1, 2017
posted by Bee'sWing at 10:32 AM on September 1, 2017
Public lectures aren't the only way to promote an idea. Is Australia going to be burning books and censoring the web, in the manner of China or Saudi Arabia too?
posted by Bee'sWing at 10:38 AM on September 1, 2017
posted by Bee'sWing at 10:38 AM on September 1, 2017
Australia actually does ban a lot of stuff from entering the country like that...
posted by Annika Cicada at 10:43 AM on September 1, 2017
posted by Annika Cicada at 10:43 AM on September 1, 2017
for instance here is a list of video games banned in Australia.
posted by Annika Cicada at 10:44 AM on September 1, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by Annika Cicada at 10:44 AM on September 1, 2017 [1 favorite]
Automobiles and fast food are a serious threat to public health.
Neither of those was introduced specifically to undermine measures that were taken to increase public health. Both of those have substantial benefits that are balanced against their health problems.
There are no substantial benefits to mass refusals to vaccinate.
Is Australia going to be burning books and censoring the web, in the manner of China or Saudi Arabia too?
AFAIK, Australia has not taken the stance that promoting anti-vax theories is illegal - just that they're not going to welcome and endorse foreigners coming to AU for the purpose of advocating it. There's a big jump between, "we're not authorizing you to come here and do that" and "everyone who does that should be silenced and maybe jailed."
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 10:46 AM on September 1, 2017 [9 favorites]
Neither of those was introduced specifically to undermine measures that were taken to increase public health. Both of those have substantial benefits that are balanced against their health problems.
There are no substantial benefits to mass refusals to vaccinate.
Is Australia going to be burning books and censoring the web, in the manner of China or Saudi Arabia too?
AFAIK, Australia has not taken the stance that promoting anti-vax theories is illegal - just that they're not going to welcome and endorse foreigners coming to AU for the purpose of advocating it. There's a big jump between, "we're not authorizing you to come here and do that" and "everyone who does that should be silenced and maybe jailed."
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 10:46 AM on September 1, 2017 [9 favorites]
Bee'sWing, possibly you should know more about what Australia is about before you continue on about free speech.
posted by XtinaS at 10:46 AM on September 1, 2017 [11 favorites]
posted by XtinaS at 10:46 AM on September 1, 2017 [11 favorites]
Automobiles and fast food are a serious threat to public health. Should they be banned?
You know what, you have a point. If you kill someone with a car you get charged with dangerous driving causing death. If an anti-vaxxer starts publicly preaching we should be able to charge them with "saying dangerously stupid shit causing death".
posted by Talez at 10:48 AM on September 1, 2017 [7 favorites]
You know what, you have a point. If you kill someone with a car you get charged with dangerous driving causing death. If an anti-vaxxer starts publicly preaching we should be able to charge them with "saying dangerously stupid shit causing death".
posted by Talez at 10:48 AM on September 1, 2017 [7 favorites]
I'm not talking about Australia really. More Enlightenment Ideals? Freedom of speech and religion.
posted by Bee'sWing at 10:50 AM on September 1, 2017
posted by Bee'sWing at 10:50 AM on September 1, 2017
I'm not talking about Australia really.
The post itself is about Australia, so...?
posted by XtinaS at 10:53 AM on September 1, 2017 [10 favorites]
The post itself is about Australia, so...?
posted by XtinaS at 10:53 AM on September 1, 2017 [10 favorites]
I'm not talking about Australia really. More Enlightenment Ideals? Freedom of speech and religion.
Ah, so letting dead white Western men do the thinking. The Enlightenment was important, yes, but it wasn't the pinnacle of human thought, and it definitely isn't the end of the discussion on those issues.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:55 AM on September 1, 2017 [13 favorites]
Ah, so letting dead white Western men do the thinking. The Enlightenment was important, yes, but it wasn't the pinnacle of human thought, and it definitely isn't the end of the discussion on those issues.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:55 AM on September 1, 2017 [13 favorites]
Is Australia going to be burning books and censoring the web, in the manner of China or Saudi Arabia too?
I'm not talking about Australia really
Which is it.
posted by Annika Cicada at 10:55 AM on September 1, 2017 [8 favorites]
I'm not talking about Australia really
Which is it.
posted by Annika Cicada at 10:55 AM on September 1, 2017 [8 favorites]
I am rather fond of this polandball comic about this.
posted by frecklefaerie at 10:57 AM on September 1, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by frecklefaerie at 10:57 AM on September 1, 2017 [1 favorite]
To me, this is a post about freedom of speech in Australia. But, freedom of speech is not limited to Australia.
posted by Bee'sWing at 11:02 AM on September 1, 2017
posted by Bee'sWing at 11:02 AM on September 1, 2017
Free speech has defined limits by law in Australia. So you're disagreeing with the legislative interpretation of free speech in Australia and wanting to have a referendum on that here?
posted by Annika Cicada at 11:14 AM on September 1, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by Annika Cicada at 11:14 AM on September 1, 2017 [1 favorite]
But, freedom of speech is not limited to Australia.
It's also not a magical talisman that we're all supposed to genuflect towards, but a rather complicated concept that by its very nature can never be absolute, nor should it be. If you really believe that denying an anti-vaxxer a visa is a genuine threat to free speech, you should be able to explain how, without jumping off the slippery slope or resorting to platitudes.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:23 AM on September 1, 2017 [11 favorites]
It's also not a magical talisman that we're all supposed to genuflect towards, but a rather complicated concept that by its very nature can never be absolute, nor should it be. If you really believe that denying an anti-vaxxer a visa is a genuine threat to free speech, you should be able to explain how, without jumping off the slippery slope or resorting to platitudes.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:23 AM on September 1, 2017 [11 favorites]
If an anti-vaxxer starts publicly preaching we should be able to charge them with "saying dangerously stupid shit causing death".
Should nazi-punching advocates here on the blue be locked up because of the Steve Scalise shooting? The Berkeley bike-lock attack? The Berkeley riots over Milo and Ann Coulter? The antifa attack on the BLM guy in Dallas? It could get mighty quiet around here, depending on how we implement your policy.
posted by scivola at 11:38 AM on September 1, 2017 [1 favorite]
Should nazi-punching advocates here on the blue be locked up because of the Steve Scalise shooting? The Berkeley bike-lock attack? The Berkeley riots over Milo and Ann Coulter? The antifa attack on the BLM guy in Dallas? It could get mighty quiet around here, depending on how we implement your policy.
posted by scivola at 11:38 AM on September 1, 2017 [1 favorite]
I don't see why this would be considered a free speech issue, it's in the 'don't shout "FIRE!" in a theatre' category. Why should Australia let someone who is encouraging actions that threaten public health enter?
posted by N-stoff at 12:15 PM on September 1, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by N-stoff at 12:15 PM on September 1, 2017 [2 favorites]
Should nazi-punching advocates here on the blue be locked up because of the Steve Scalise shooting? The Berkeley bike-lock attack? The Berkeley riots over Milo and Ann Coulter? The antifa attack on the BLM guy in Dallas? It could get mighty quiet around here, depending on how we implement your policy.
Hey. now, I never advocated punching Nazis. I was all about shooting them with Venom miniguns or particle cannons.
posted by Samizdata at 12:53 PM on September 1, 2017
Hey. now, I never advocated punching Nazis. I was all about shooting them with Venom miniguns or particle cannons.
posted by Samizdata at 12:53 PM on September 1, 2017
> Freedom of speech doesn't extend to lies
What? Sure it does. Who decides what is a lie? I would be in favor of charging an anti -vaxer with manslaughter if you could determine that they caused a child's death, but prior restraint on their speech? No.
Let's examine what is actually happening.
Does Australia ban any dissemination of anti-vax information? No.
Are Australians prohibited from discussing the pros and cons of vaccinations? No.
Are they prohibited from reading books or websites that espouse an anti-vax message? No.
So what has happened then? A country has decided to not allow a purveyor of questionable science to enter their country to promote said questionable science.
posted by Artful Codger at 3:02 PM on September 1, 2017 [11 favorites]
What? Sure it does. Who decides what is a lie? I would be in favor of charging an anti -vaxer with manslaughter if you could determine that they caused a child's death, but prior restraint on their speech? No.
Let's examine what is actually happening.
Does Australia ban any dissemination of anti-vax information? No.
Are Australians prohibited from discussing the pros and cons of vaccinations? No.
Are they prohibited from reading books or websites that espouse an anti-vax message? No.
So what has happened then? A country has decided to not allow a purveyor of questionable science to enter their country to promote said questionable science.
posted by Artful Codger at 3:02 PM on September 1, 2017 [11 favorites]
The thing that people seem to dance around but never addresses when it comes to who gets to speak is who decides who gets to speak. Libertarians would say that no-one gets to decide, but 'who do we let speak' is one of those things that makes a society a society, and it will get decided whether you like it or not. In a democracy, it seems reasonable that the society itself should agree on who does and doesn't get to speak - while you could argue that this leads to the tyranny of the majority, I believe that happens whether you formalise it or not (for instance, in times when the KKK operated with tacit, but not official, government support), and I think in a democratic society, the question of whether someone can speak is a topic that's always open, even to those who aren't permitted to speak on anything else.
There's a long tradition in most developed countries of having some kind of prohibition on some speech, without the country falling into a horrific morass of tyranny. It's possible, and perhaps even desirable, to rule out certain topics as verboten in order to force your society away from them - take Germany, where even its right wing is strongly against the ideals of the Nazi party of 70 years ago. But then, you can have situations such as in India, where movies are censored on an arbitrary basis in ways that Indians broadly disagree with. As a democracy, there's clearly a problem when the government is not acting in the interests of its citizens, so clearly there's a spectrum between acceptable and unacceptable.
Let's examine that situation closely: if the citizens are not making the decisions, and their preferences are not taken into account, then why not? Well, in India, this is an easy question: there's one guy, he's the censorship authority, and he decides what kind of speech is and is not allowed, including speech questioning his decisions. He has no obligation to ensure he serves the electorate he's shaping, and no accountability if he harms them. When that power is abused, how are Indians supposed to correct the situation, when any attempts are censored in the same way? Compare to Australia, where we know exactly why those particular games were banned (there's a surprising amount of games that have some kind of anal rape mechanic) and the appeal process is clear if you're willing to argue that anal rape is fine, actually.
Here's the problem with Peter Dutton's ability to unilaterally block people from entering Australia. For the most part, the electorate broadly agrees with blocking the people being blocked. They're broadly unpopular, and there's a reasonable case against giving them a platform. Peter Dutton having this power is sort of the worst-case scenario - Australia seems uniquely vulnerable to conservative dickheads getting power and setting the terms of the debate, and Peter Dutton is very definitely one of those (until very recently, he blocked reporting and whistleblowing on Australia's concentration camps on 'operational' grounds). And yet, the specific power he has to block people from entering the country hasn't yet been abused in ways described further up. That is, I believe, entirely due to it being a big story every time it's used, which means that the electorate gets oversight over it and the ability to respond. But that's not inherent to the power. The government is not required to publicise its use, and it's not required to check with the electorate and given them the opportunity to respond. In a democracy, that kind of power should have a public veto.
posted by Merus at 9:45 PM on September 1, 2017 [4 favorites]
There's a long tradition in most developed countries of having some kind of prohibition on some speech, without the country falling into a horrific morass of tyranny. It's possible, and perhaps even desirable, to rule out certain topics as verboten in order to force your society away from them - take Germany, where even its right wing is strongly against the ideals of the Nazi party of 70 years ago. But then, you can have situations such as in India, where movies are censored on an arbitrary basis in ways that Indians broadly disagree with. As a democracy, there's clearly a problem when the government is not acting in the interests of its citizens, so clearly there's a spectrum between acceptable and unacceptable.
Let's examine that situation closely: if the citizens are not making the decisions, and their preferences are not taken into account, then why not? Well, in India, this is an easy question: there's one guy, he's the censorship authority, and he decides what kind of speech is and is not allowed, including speech questioning his decisions. He has no obligation to ensure he serves the electorate he's shaping, and no accountability if he harms them. When that power is abused, how are Indians supposed to correct the situation, when any attempts are censored in the same way? Compare to Australia, where we know exactly why those particular games were banned (there's a surprising amount of games that have some kind of anal rape mechanic) and the appeal process is clear if you're willing to argue that anal rape is fine, actually.
Here's the problem with Peter Dutton's ability to unilaterally block people from entering Australia. For the most part, the electorate broadly agrees with blocking the people being blocked. They're broadly unpopular, and there's a reasonable case against giving them a platform. Peter Dutton having this power is sort of the worst-case scenario - Australia seems uniquely vulnerable to conservative dickheads getting power and setting the terms of the debate, and Peter Dutton is very definitely one of those (until very recently, he blocked reporting and whistleblowing on Australia's concentration camps on 'operational' grounds). And yet, the specific power he has to block people from entering the country hasn't yet been abused in ways described further up. That is, I believe, entirely due to it being a big story every time it's used, which means that the electorate gets oversight over it and the ability to respond. But that's not inherent to the power. The government is not required to publicise its use, and it's not required to check with the electorate and given them the opportunity to respond. In a democracy, that kind of power should have a public veto.
posted by Merus at 9:45 PM on September 1, 2017 [4 favorites]
Does Australia ban any dissemination of anti-vax information? No.
It is a federal crime in Australia to disseminate any information that may help in assisted suicide, and possibly any advocacy for voluntary euthanasia in the event of terminal illness. It's an overbroad, sweeping law, a product of the country's rolling right-wing culture war; Howard threw it as a bone to the religious continent, alongside the nation's anti-gay marriage laws, and the lack of any guarantees of freedom of speech or human rights meant that it'll probably remain on the books forever.
posted by acb at 1:57 AM on September 2, 2017
It is a federal crime in Australia to disseminate any information that may help in assisted suicide, and possibly any advocacy for voluntary euthanasia in the event of terminal illness. It's an overbroad, sweeping law, a product of the country's rolling right-wing culture war; Howard threw it as a bone to the religious continent, alongside the nation's anti-gay marriage laws, and the lack of any guarantees of freedom of speech or human rights meant that it'll probably remain on the books forever.
posted by acb at 1:57 AM on September 2, 2017
In every example of yours, anotherpanacea, as I see it, the consensus goes the other way
It's not about how you see it.
It's about how people who run camps where refugees die see it.
It's about how people who don't want same sex marriage see it.
It's about how people who want to drug test welfare recipients on the one hand but think it's OK to miss a vote in Parliament because they were too drunk on the other see it.
This is convenient for me. I hate anti-vaxxers with the fire of a thousand suns. But next time it might not be convenient for me. Next time it might be somebody speaking out about coal, or corruption, or LGBTQI+ rights. Somebody who gets painted as a dangerous radical, who wants to damage our families, our economy, or 'Australian values'.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 7:06 AM on September 2, 2017 [1 favorite]
It's not about how you see it.
It's about how people who run camps where refugees die see it.
It's about how people who don't want same sex marriage see it.
It's about how people who want to drug test welfare recipients on the one hand but think it's OK to miss a vote in Parliament because they were too drunk on the other see it.
This is convenient for me. I hate anti-vaxxers with the fire of a thousand suns. But next time it might not be convenient for me. Next time it might be somebody speaking out about coal, or corruption, or LGBTQI+ rights. Somebody who gets painted as a dangerous radical, who wants to damage our families, our economy, or 'Australian values'.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 7:06 AM on September 2, 2017 [1 favorite]
It is a federal crime in Australia to disseminate any information that may help in assisted suicide, and possibly any advocacy for voluntary euthanasia in the event of terminal illness. It's an overbroad, sweeping law, a product of the country's rolling right-wing culture war; Howard threw it as a bone to the religious continent, alongside the nation's anti-gay marriage laws, and the lack of any guarantees of freedom of speech or human rights meant that it'll probably remain on the books forever.
I'm not at all familiar with this, but a quick scan of a few articles suggests that that it is more complex and more in flux than you seem to be implying. Extrapolating from the Canadian experience, I suspect that Australia will at some point go with the consensus of most developed nations on assisted death.
So, besides being a bit of a derail, it doesn't seem to make the point that Australia is suppressing free speech.
posted by Artful Codger at 9:33 AM on September 2, 2017
I'm not at all familiar with this, but a quick scan of a few articles suggests that that it is more complex and more in flux than you seem to be implying. Extrapolating from the Canadian experience, I suspect that Australia will at some point go with the consensus of most developed nations on assisted death.
So, besides being a bit of a derail, it doesn't seem to make the point that Australia is suppressing free speech.
posted by Artful Codger at 9:33 AM on September 2, 2017
But next time it might not be convenient for me
This is true, but I'm happy to assess each case on its merits. If anything you're suggesting happens I'll protest loud and clear. In the meantime, much as I loathe him, Dutton has only used this power to block an anti vaxxer and an MRA. I'm cool with it.
posted by smoke at 3:15 PM on September 2, 2017 [2 favorites]
This is true, but I'm happy to assess each case on its merits. If anything you're suggesting happens I'll protest loud and clear. In the meantime, much as I loathe him, Dutton has only used this power to block an anti vaxxer and an MRA. I'm cool with it.
posted by smoke at 3:15 PM on September 2, 2017 [2 favorites]
#NotAllForeignersRejectedByDutton
posted by the agents of KAOS at 5:29 PM on September 2, 2017
posted by the agents of KAOS at 5:29 PM on September 2, 2017
If anything you're suggesting happens I'll protest loud and clear.
On what grounds, and how effective do you think that would be, noting that anti-vaxxers are protesting this particular ban and getting nowhere?
We've now set a precedent that the government can decide who's undesirable and ban them from entering the country. They're not going to ask you or me first, and even if they did, 'Yeah, I was cool last time you did it but not this time because I didn't like that first person but I do like the second person' seems pretty arbitrary, which is a shit way to do anything in the public interest.
(Never mind that the government is playing right into these nutjobs' hands by banning this bloke. 'Why would teh gubmint ban me unless they had something to hide?' These people just love this sort of shit, because it validates everything they say about the existence of a conspiracy / being silenced by the powers that be.)
So, besides being a bit of a derail, it doesn't seem to make the point that Australia is suppressing free speech.
This bloke is not free to speak here. His speech is literally being supressed. The existence of other options for other people to talk about what this bloke wants to talk about doesn't change that - if anything, it makes banning this one particular person while allowing a tide of the same info to flow from other sources even more ridiculous. What's the point? Striking him down makes him stronger.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 7:08 PM on September 3, 2017
On what grounds, and how effective do you think that would be, noting that anti-vaxxers are protesting this particular ban and getting nowhere?
We've now set a precedent that the government can decide who's undesirable and ban them from entering the country. They're not going to ask you or me first, and even if they did, 'Yeah, I was cool last time you did it but not this time because I didn't like that first person but I do like the second person' seems pretty arbitrary, which is a shit way to do anything in the public interest.
(Never mind that the government is playing right into these nutjobs' hands by banning this bloke. 'Why would teh gubmint ban me unless they had something to hide?' These people just love this sort of shit, because it validates everything they say about the existence of a conspiracy / being silenced by the powers that be.)
So, besides being a bit of a derail, it doesn't seem to make the point that Australia is suppressing free speech.
This bloke is not free to speak here. His speech is literally being supressed. The existence of other options for other people to talk about what this bloke wants to talk about doesn't change that - if anything, it makes banning this one particular person while allowing a tide of the same info to flow from other sources even more ridiculous. What's the point? Striking him down makes him stronger.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 7:08 PM on September 3, 2017
We've now set a precedent that the government can decide who's undesirable and ban them from entering the country.
No, we haven't, because the government has had this power since the day it was founded - it's one of the key points of sovereignty.
(Never mind that the government is playing right into these nutjobs' hands by banning this bloke. 'Why would teh gubmint ban me unless they had something to hide?' These people just love this sort of shit, because it validates everything they say about the existence of a conspiracy / being silenced by the powers that be.)
Conspiracy theorists will twist anything into their narrative - that's how conspiracy theories work! Arguing that you can't do something because "you'll just play into their hands" is a good way to debate yourself into inaction.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:44 PM on September 12, 2017
No, we haven't, because the government has had this power since the day it was founded - it's one of the key points of sovereignty.
(Never mind that the government is playing right into these nutjobs' hands by banning this bloke. 'Why would teh gubmint ban me unless they had something to hide?' These people just love this sort of shit, because it validates everything they say about the existence of a conspiracy / being silenced by the powers that be.)
Conspiracy theorists will twist anything into their narrative - that's how conspiracy theories work! Arguing that you can't do something because "you'll just play into their hands" is a good way to debate yourself into inaction.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:44 PM on September 12, 2017
This is convenient for me. I hate anti-vaxxers with the fire of a thousand suns. But next time it might not be convenient for me. Next time it might be somebody speaking out about coal, or corruption, or LGBTQI+ rights. Somebody who gets painted as a dangerous radical, who wants to damage our families, our economy, or 'Australian values'.
Ah, yes, the "if I bind my hands, I bind theirs" argument. The funny thing is - it doesn't work. Even if you bind your hands, they're not going to see themselves bound by that action.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:46 PM on September 12, 2017 [1 favorite]
Ah, yes, the "if I bind my hands, I bind theirs" argument. The funny thing is - it doesn't work. Even if you bind your hands, they're not going to see themselves bound by that action.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:46 PM on September 12, 2017 [1 favorite]
« Older The Blind Traveler | The man in the middle. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by unliteral at 6:14 AM on September 1, 2017 [11 favorites]