Aussies: A Call For Action!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 17, 2005, 12:47 AM | #

“threatened to sue Deakin University for racial vilification if the journal published the article.”  (—from the log entry)

You’d think any racial vilification laws would be worded so as to explicitly exempt scholarly articles from prosecution, and that therefore a vilification case brought in this instance would be thrown out of court by the judge (so wouldn’t be brought in the first place, the lawyer knowing the case’s certain fate in advance).  By the way, how come our side’s lawyers aren’t constantly out there trying to cook up ingenious ways to sue the other side, as the other side is constantly doing to us?  What’s up with that?  Lawyers can make a bundle litigating on both sides of these issues, yet the lawyers on our side don’t seem interested; don’t have the same killer instinct and craving for gold the other side’s lawyers have in spades.

“PS: Be nice - don’t follow my example.”  (—idem)

What example are you referring to, Geoff?  I’m lost ...

Posted by jonjayray on September 17, 2005, 03:48 AM | #

I think the Beckster is an elephant that does forget

I posted that here on 15th

Posted by posted on September 17, 2005, 06:51 AM | #

Who’s Keith Windschuttle?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 17, 2005, 09:25 AM | #

“Who’s Keith Windschuttle?”  (—Posted)

guy. 

I don’t follow his stuff and don’t know much about him.  The reason I don’t is I’ve gotten the impression he’s a right-liberal who though fairly good on lots of things hasn’t got the race thing down at all.  People like that are sort of OK but won’t do in a pinch, and the Western World is in a pinch at the moment, of forty years duration and counting, so what free time I have I’ll devote to reading the ideas of commentators who do have the race thing down.  Sorry, Keith ... Let us know when you’ve figured out the race thing, though, and I’ll give you a try.

Posted by Geoff Beck on September 17, 2005, 10:08 AM | #

Sorry Jon, I didn’t see your post.

Fred, Windschuttle has done interesting work debunking Australia’s incarnation of the “Noble Savage” myth.

In America that myth takes the form of the spiritual and wise Black man or the environmentally minded and at peace with nature red Indian.

Posted by Mark Richardson on September 17, 2005, 08:05 PM | #

Fred is right, Windschuttle is basically a right-liberal. On his website he writes that he follows an Enlightenment liberalism, including a belief in cosmopolitanism.

However, he’s a right rather than a left liberal in the sense that he is a “loyalist” to the modern liberal west.

This means that he dislikes the attacks that left-liberals make on their own societies. In Australia, the left often uses Aborigines to undermine the legitimacy of their own country. So Windschuttle has devoted a considerable effort to replying to leftist claims about Aborigines.

Most notably he wrote a book called “The Fabrication of Aboriginal History”. In a very detailed and scholarly way he showed how the left had distorted history - sometimes even simply making up stories about mistreatment of Aborigines.

The book is so well-written and well-researched that the left is still on the back foot on the issue. They now know that they’re going to have to show real evidence for what they claim, or else they’ll be humiliated by Windschuttle.

So, despite his liberalism, Windschuttle has performed a great service.

Posted by ben tillman on September 18, 2005, 10:41 PM | #

By the way, how come our side’s lawyers aren’t constantly out there trying to cook up ingenious ways to sue the other side, as the other side is constantly doing to us?  What’s up with that?

Oh, we have the “ingenious” legal theories you’re looking for, Fred.  All manner of them.  Absolutely brilliant.  But we face problems:

1. We lack coordination, and those with standing to sue are not brought together with those who possess the theories for legal activism.

2. We lack money, and we cannot act pro bono publico without benefactors.

3. The deck is stacked, and we cannot trust the courts to render unbiased judgemnts.