When you hear an elected Australian Senator defending his abuse of a fellow Senator by using the argument that 'general abuse' is ok, you've got to wonder how our national discourse has gotten to this point, and how we might set about getting it on track to resemble something we'd actually feel proud to share with our children.
Personally, I think David Leyonhjelm is a very selfish, ignorant and mean-spirited man. I feel the evidence to support this position is pretty overwhelming. But if I were in the Senate, I wouldn't say so; I'd simply focus on critiquing the feeble, self-serving, foul-smelling claptrap that he regularly shovels onto the Senate floor, and let others draw their own conclusions as to the merits of the man. The Senate ought not be for stunts or name-calling; it's supposed to be a house of review focused squarely on the national interest. I don't think there are many who would claim it is currently fulfilling its intended mandate.
And for as long as people are focused on defending their rights to abuse, or be bigots, we are abusing the very existence of rights as a concept. Decent statements, reasonable assertions - even confronting ones - stand alone. They don't need defensive shields. Our constitution implies a right to free speech, but it neither defines it or enshrines it. This was wise, because acceptable speech changes with the growth of nations.
Even the most diehard, self-serving defenders of free speech know there are limits. No one would expect to get away with holding up signs that advocate violence, for example. There is already a limit; the ongoing debate is simply about where it is. I'd prefer it not be drawn in a position that legitimises racism, homophobia or misogyny, or misandry, for that matter. And I certainly do not want such harmful language naturalised and empowered by having it carve out an accepted place in parliamentary discourse.
And let's remember: concepts like freedom of speech exist in the service of humanity. We are not here to blindly prop up the concept. It is a reality that sometimes, my desire to speak will cause distress to some who might be listening. I swear quite a bit, but I don't do it loudly on public transport. Surely if we have an implied right to freedom of speech, there is an implied expectation to treat people decently.
If we can't look closely at this issue, about how and why there are different viewpoints and ongoing issues and what might be done about them, we have a problem. My thought is simply this: if a lot of people are using rational argument to outline why a particular comment or type of comment is hurtful to them, well, only a very selfish, wilfully-ignorant and mean-spirited person would simply repeat the comments, and hide behind a bastardised version of a pretty important concept to do so.
Mr. Leyonjhem didn't cause this problem. He didn't piss in the pond. (He's just gorging himself at the bottom of it.) But he's in a position to clean it up a bit, rather than unrepentantly continuing to befoul it. But I doubt he possesses the dignity, integrity or intelligence to do so. Instead, it's going to fall to people to condemn his actions, and for those able to do so, vote him out.
I would only ask that those wanting to criticise Mr. Leyonhjelm do so in a manner that upholds the standards he himself is debasing. Rather like a teacher shouting for silence, the irony is self-defeating.
And if you believe Mr. Leyonhjelm's position is defensible, please de-friend me. We are not compatible.
Comments