JCC Hostage situation in Sydney CBD

Austrian officials at up an "extremism" hotline several months ago for people to call when they fear family members are becoming involved in extremist groups. It sounds terribly like snitching, obviously, but they've set it up so law enforcement is not contacted unless there is an imminent threat. Otherwise the focus is on trying to get counseling for the person in question. And apparently it is something of a success so far.

 

But then who decides what is and is not reasonable? If you become intolerant of intolerance do you not then become intolerant yourself?

How do you draw this line? Russell Brand has called for our democratic state to be forcefully dismantled by revolution. Should he be expelled or imprisoned? Ok, so that actually sounds quite appealing but you get my point.

I'm 100% with JS Mill on this one. I believe in absolute freedom of speech, all opinion open to honest discussion. It strikes me that part of the problem here is that we don't have a truly open discussion; one that involves listening.

To illustrate, allow me to rag on my own nation for a change. We went to war against Iraq against the will of the majority of the British people and against the will of the majority of our elected members of parliament, probably also the cabinet. In essence, it was a unilateral decision made by one man for whom 30,000 or so of his constituents had voted. Possibly not even a true majority of one constituency when you take non-voters into account. Democracy at work.

The war was entered into on the basis of 'evidence' that was rapidly and rather clumsily cobbled together by Blair's press office. Partly pure fiction, partly plagiarised from a 10 year old doctoral thesis. The Germans stated clearly that there was no evidence of WMDs, a ministry of defence scientist also and shortly afterward, apparently, killed himself.

Anyway, we went to war against the will of people and parliament on the basis of a pack of lies and with the rhetoric that this was a 'war of good against evil'.

Interestingly, we also argued that Saddam tortured and killed his own people. At the same time as having an open trade agreement - including arms supply - with Uzbekistan, knowing that the Karimov regime there tortured and murdered muslims. We also colluded with the torture of both combatants and civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as facilities around the world to which largely innocent folk were 'extraordinarily rendered'.

So we fund, facilitate and collude with the torture of muslims while congratulating ourselves for stopping Saddam's torture program in this 'war of good against evil' that was a great triumph for democracy. We continue to collude with torture to this day.

Do you see what I'm driving at? I find IS, their aims, motives, methods and ideology deplorable and repugnant. I'll even admit that - after Lee Rigby's brutal murder on the streets of London - I looked to see if there was an elite regiment who would take a man of my age as a reservist. I was that ***ing angry. But while we cherry pick all the truly repugnant **** spewing from the mouths of hate preachers, we ignore the arguments and grievances that carry some weight, particularly those pertaining to some of the repugnant **** we've done and that many muslims are - justifiably - ****ing angry about.

If we had a truly open and honest discussion about the things that drive recruitment to extremist groups, if we were truly as liberal as we like to think we are and had a Millsian level of free speech, then I'm pretty sure the problem would dissipate quite quickly. I mean, we'd have to admit that we ****ed up pretty badly, apologise and make some changes to our foreign policy, but it would work.

Full, open and honest discussion has a way of making wrong opinion look pretty stupid.

^ that's my rant for the day, that is.