Government heat map ‘wake up call’ to stop…

Climate Media Centre Advocacy groups have welcomed the release of the Federal Government’s…

Compulsory income management doing more harm than good:…

Charles Darwin University Media Release Compulsory income management (CIM) in the Northern Territory…

Flicker of Hope: Biden’s Throwaway Lines on Assange

Walking stiffly, largely distracted, and struggling to focus on the bare essentials,…

Seizing a Future Made in Australia

Climate Council Media Release THE CLIMATE COUNCIL celebrates today's announcement that the Future…

The Meanjin essay: The Voice and Australia's democracy…

With Stephen Charles AO KC The dire state of truth in Australia’s civic…

Haunted by waters

By James Moore We were young when we lived near the Rio Grande…

The price of victimhood: The Higgins/Lehrmann gravy train

By Bert Hetebry I’m not much good at sums, but I can imagine…

An Open Letter: Save Toondah - it’s the…

By Callen Sorensen Karklis Dear Readers, Seventeen years ago I was inspired by…


Acting Prime Minister Morrison, Acting Prime Minister McCormack And Not Acting At All

When Scott Morrison was acting as Prime Minister last week he told us: “I’m not here to offer a running commentary on what should be happening in the United States”. Of course, like many fly-in/fly-out workers, he wasn’t at work this week, so it becomes time for a commentary on all things American, such as Twitter’s decision to suspend Donald Trump’s account because that inhibits his free speech. After all, there’s no other way for the POTUS to get his message out to his followers.

The trouble with the current debate has pretty much been laid bare by the Acting Prime Minister, Michael McWhatshisname when he said, “Facts are sometimes contentious and what you might think is right – somebody else might think is completely untrue – that is part of living in a democratic country,” Facts are not “contentious” just because they don’t fit a preferred political narrative. Facts are well, factual, and if they’re not factual, then they’re what one might call an opinion and there’s a difference between a fact that people generally accept and an opinion. This is certainly something that should be taught to several people that consider themselves journalists, although I’m sure they’d argue that it’s a fact that they’re a journalist and as such are just presenting the facts as they see them which includes the fact that if they don’t give Morrison a positive spin then they’ll lose access to his “scoops”.

Anyway, there a whole range of things that people argue are true when they’re just opinions and there’s a whole range of things that we consider facts that we’ll one day discover that we were wrong about. Where the trouble lies is when we slide around and don’t actually treat things consistently, treating some opinions as though they are so self-evident that they should be taken as facts, while some verifiable events are treated as though they’re still something that needs a lot of debate.

Let’s take two simple events and put them side-by-side: A couple of years ago, Coalition senators voted for a motion saying that it was ok to be white. Yes, they did back down and say that they were confused, but some of them still tried to argue that there was nothing intrinsically racist about the motion because all it was saying was that there was nothing wrong with being white and it wasn’t suggesting that there was something wrong with not being the same colour as those sheets that the Ku Klux Klan like wearing.

For a moment, let’s leave everything that’s wrong with that opinion and just leave it sitting there like some sort of legal precedent. What we’re left with is the idea that just because we say one thing about white people, then nobody should infer that we mean that other people are excluded by the statement. It’s just a simple affirmation.

Now with that precedent in mind, let’s look at the “Black Lives Matter” response. No, no say some, you can’t say Black Lives Matter because all lives matter and saying that implies that other lives aren’t important.

I’m not suggesting that we try to unpack all the inherent racism in the two positions; I’m just suggesting that when one puts them together like that, there’s a certain inconsistency that exposes where people are actually coming from. Saying that being white is ok, doesn’t mean that not being white isn’t but saying Black Lives Matter is leaving out all the other lives that matter just as much…Like the lives of the police unless they happen to be guarding Capitol Hill in which case it’s apparently fine to beat them to death with a fire extinguisher.

And, as I pointed out before, context is everything. While the BLM protests were in response to particular incidents, the glib “all lives matter” is merely a way of undercutting the racism that the protests were trying to highlight. Nobody jumps up in the middle of a funeral and interrupts the person giving the eulogy to say, “All lives matter so can you please stop just talking about Henry?”

It’s the slippery appeals to notions of things like freedom and free speech that actually prevent any meaningful discussion of areas where there is a difference of opinion. Rather than looking at the content, we end up talking about those things which we pretend are self-evident but in other contexts are hotly contested. (Yassmin and ANZAC day tweet anyone? Or Scott McIntyre.)

When asked if he was prepared to condemn conspiracy theories being espoused by members of his own government, Morrison asserted the rather general: “You know, Australia is a free country. There’s such a thing as freedom of speech in this country and that will continue. OK, well thank you all very much.” Nobody asked for the PM to send them to a re-education camp; he was merely asked if he was prepared to call out their rather strange ideas.

Compare Morrison’s mealy-mouthed assertion about George Christensen being allowed to say what he likes because of freedom of speech with the way he’d respond if Labor or Green politicians said anything that was controversial. I don’t remember him saying that he wouldn’t be commenting on the desire for a zero-emissions target by 2050 because it’s a free country and people have the right to say what they like.

So it’s all very simple. We have a strong belief in the rights of certain people and these rights are indisputable but we don’t need a bill of rights protecting these because then everybody would be able to claim the right to say whatever and big tech companies would have the right to impose conditions and implement their terms of service.

Is the decision of the editor not to publish my letter substantially different from Twitter’s decision to cease the publication of Trump’s opinions? If the answer is that he has the right to be published because he’s President, then you’ve already decided that, when it comes to freedom of speech, it’s no longer a right but a privilege granted to the important few and the rest of us just have to accept that it’s conditional for the many.

If you need to ask permission, it’s no longer a right.


Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button


Login here Register here
  1. Steve Davis

    “I’m not here to offer a running commentary on what should be happening in the United States”.

    But they are always ready to comment on what should be happening in Hong Kong, or Russia, or Venezuela, or…..

  2. Geoff Andrews

    It’s certainly a grey (or gray) area.

    Of course, you’re all forgetting about the poor red & yellow citizens of the world – they don’t get a mention.

  3. Matters Not

    Facts are the proverbial dime a dozen. They’re everywhere – usually In plague proportions – almost infinite in number. So while they are necessary for any sensible discussion, they are not (necessarily) sufficient by themselves. Just ask any Historian. The real problem becomes – what to leave out.

    Consideration should be given to the selection, the (hierarchical) ordering and then the both the intended and given meaning(s).

    That Craig Kelly (and his thoughts) are dominating the headlines shows (intellectually) where we are at. That Michael McWhatisname is the acting PM provides a reinforcement. Or has April 1 arrived early this year.?

  4. leefe

    “Fact” is fast becoming the new “literally”. And all I can do in protest is keep repeating Inigo Montoya’s line that “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

    “You know, Australia is a free country. There’s such a thing as freedom of speech in this country … ”
    In fact (see what I did there), legally there is no such thing. The legal reality is that there are many constraints on what may be said, by whom, and under what circumstances, and I don’t just mean the standard “You can’t shout FIRE in a crowded cinema”. Check out our defamation laws, for instance.

  5. Neil

    That the two Ms are two gigantic W ankers is an indisputable fact.

  6. Carole

    All I can think is that Christensen and Kelly must know where all the bodies are buried.

  7. Kerri

    Like Frydenberg declaring that privately owned social media companies were stifling free speech by blocking Trump yet anyone who asks about his mother’s nationality is an anti-semite?? And I cannot seriously believe that Mc Cormack tried to argue opinion as fact by declaring that he might think the sky isn’t actually blue!?!?! 🤦🏻‍♀️
    And I can’t get the thought out of my head of Christensen and Kelly in white pants, striped shirts and little hats with propellers on top. Tweedledum and Tweedledummer?

  8. Brozza

    I wonder if those cans of Wank juice were filled by the morons holding them after watching videos of gump?

  9. wam

    Great work, rossleigh,
    scummo et al base their governance on the belief that all lives are equal and some lives are more equal than others.

  10. Robert Parker

    I was surprised to learn that the Acting PM was qualified as a journalist. Every utterance he’s ever made had me convinced that he failed 6th-grade primary school 3 years running.

  11. Bruce White

    Another perceptive article by Rossleigh, congratulations. I guess what we can draw from this is that after merely a week in the job as actor pretending to be the PM McCormack is a hopeless actor.And an incompetent leader.With the intellectual gravitas of a Riverina meat ant. As for Craig Kelly.What can we say.He seems to be incapable of shutting up.He insists on trying to put his foot in his mouth, even when it is self evidence to most normal people that it is counterproductive.Maybe the taste of toe jam is too much for him to resist. What is freedom, if its not responsibility anyway? How anyone in Kellys electorate thinks that he has an ounce of usefulness is beyond my comprehension. The coalition should be embarrassed in the extreme by these 2 intellectual midgets. But they seem to be beyond shame or humility. Dangerous.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 2 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Return to home page