Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Go to - FDNC NEWS FORUMS > Social Issues > Universities Stifling Free Speech


Posted by: Charles Dec 27 2017, 04:15 PM
Opinion: Attack on free speech means university is no longer a place to learn life lessons

Gemma Tognini
Wednesday, 27 December 2017 12:28PM


user posted image

Illustration: Don LindsayPicture: The West Australian

My university life was more than 20 years ago. Trust me when I say just typing those words makes me feel like an old gal. Someone told me the other day that I’m too young to be nostalgic about anything but I reckon you’re never too young. I remember all too well the excitement of my new-found freedom — social and intellectual.

Free from the rigidity of a Catholic school (where I once got detention for wearing the wrong-coloured ribbon in my ponytail) and released from the shackles of a uniform and a timetable, the experience best described as sudden-onset-adulthood was, in a word, glorious. I remember the cheap thrill of being able to dress how I wanted, driving to uni each day in Betsy, my trusted and ancient beige Toyota Corolla which had been handed down from my mum, to my brother, to me. It was a sweet ride, people. It had a cassette player and everything.

Kebabs, beer, conversation and, when necessary, study shaped our days. Yep, I did an English degree in the 90s and as far as rites of passage go, it was awesome. It was for the most part, uncomplicated.
It was wholly free from a dialogue of victimhood, political correctness and timidity of thought.

Now, as my 17-year-old nephew prepares to go to university in a month or so, I confess to being a little nervous about the environment he and hundreds of thousands of Australian young adults are going into.

For some time at least anecdotally there have been concerns about the erosion of critical thinking at Australia’s universities. The odd opinion piece, like this one, the occasional news report, all hinting at, warning of an odious slide into mental protectionism.

What do I mean by that? Well, campuses have seemingly become overrun by the notion of providing a “safe space” either in word or in deed, where nobody disagrees, nobody is allowed to get offended and truly diverse ideas inevitably die like dogs in the gutter.

Now, let me be clear from the get-go. This is not about curriculum, although that’s one for another day.

It is about social engineering and deliberate restriction of free speech.
What’s that I hear you say?

Prove it?

Thought you’d never ask.

Research conducted by the Institute of Public Affairs and published at the end of last year in the Weekend Australian paints a clear and frightening picture of just how real this issue is. The IPA conducted an audit and analysis of university policies, procedures and guidelines. It found 81 per cent of Australia’s 42 universities are actively hostile to free speech. Actively hostile. That means the people running these joints are actively trying to restrict intellectual freedom.

At universities. Let that sink in for just a minute.

The IPA also found that 17 per cent go so far as to threaten free speech.
It found hundreds of policies, including in one case, a 1600-word “flag policy” (the mind boggles), yet the majority of unis fail to comply with their legislated obligation to have a policy that “upholds free intellectual inquiry”. Only eight universities complied.

It went on to describe an environment in which there have been violent protests against certain speakers, and students instructed not to express their viewpoint. Violent protests.

Apart from violence being, you know, a criminal activity, does that not just scream a lack of intellectual depth? If the best response students have to a differing view is to torch the joint or belt someone with a piece of 4x2, you’re not really talking about our nation’s brightest. What is even more sobering is that the audit found almost all of the regulations and restrictions extend beyond the law itself. Students are more censored, restricted and gagged by their universities than in real life.

It seems the culture behind all of this has been allowed to quietly thrive and spread like lantana on your gran’s back fence because nobody thought they’d ever need to prune it.

I know it’s the habit of every generation to look back and think they did things better.

I’m not so foolish nor blinkered to suggest it was perfect, because it wasn’t.

But what it was, was an environment in which we learnt not just in lectures (and let’s be clear, sometimes not even in lectures) but in the day-to-day social navigation around differing views, ideas, cultures and beliefs and the basic life skills that navigation teaches a person.

The reason we should be taking notice of this lies in the black and white numbers of the IPA’s audit. Sure, it backs up a view I’ve held and many of my peers and mates have held for some time, but it’s not about being right, it’s not even about that. It’s about the kind of place a university should be.

It’s about the systematic removal of circumstances in which young people can, through normal, everyday life, develop independent and critical thinking by dealing with people who hold opposing views — even ones most of us might find a tad gauche.

I’m going to go a step further. Learning to deal with offence — rather than the offence itself, is a gift. It’s a life lesson. It teaches you to think for yourself, toss out the garbage, keep what works, listen with an open mind, and respectfully walk away without setting fire to something or calling a lawyer.

And if university isn’t one of the places young people get to learn this, then change is way overdue.


https://thewest.com.au/opinion/opinion-attack-on-free-speech-means-university-is-no-longer-a-place-to-learn-life-lessons-ng-b88699829z

Once again Gemma Tognini has produced an excellent opinion piece. Political Correctness is all about protecting people from perceived offence. As Gemma writes, life lessons should be about learning to deal with offence, not denying individuals the right to express their opinions.

Posted by: scepo Dec 28 2017, 09:20 AM
I could not agree more Charles.

A great and well written O.P.

Posted by: charka Dec 28 2017, 01:47 PM
look at SSM debacle

Posted by: Alicia Dec 28 2017, 03:55 PM
Well done Gemma, I hope she isn’t hung, drawn and quartered but our social “ elite”. http://fairdinkumnewschat.com/rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Flin Dec 28 2017, 03:56 PM
I was going to say was that now-a-days thermometers aren't the only things that have degrees and are graduated but posses no original thoughts, but I wouldn't like to offend any one who may be offended or be offended on someone's behalf who may or may not take offence, so I'd better not say it..  http://fairdinkumnewschat.b1.jcink.com/uploads/fairdinkumnewschat/smiley_wink.gif

Posted by: Alicia Dec 29 2017, 06:28 AM
http://fairdinkumnewschat.com/blink.gif http://fairdinkumnewschat.com/laugh.gif http://fairdinkumnewschat.com/laugh.gif http://fairdinkumnewschat.com/laugh.gif

Posted by: Charles Dec 31 2017, 09:15 AM
There was a very interesting letter in the "Weekend West" in response to Gemma Tognini's opinion piece.The writer, John Geary, states, "... there is no better example ... than the decision, two years ago of my alma mater, the University of WA, to reject $4 million of Federal funding to set up a Consensus Centre under Danish academic Professor Bjorn Lomborg.
It was to be a think-tank to debate and address pressing global issues.
In this case, the opponents of free discussion were the student body and the staff who pressured a weak administration into refusing the Commonwealth offer.
The good professor's sin?
Having the temerity to suggest that the trillions of dollars worldwide being thrown at global warming could be better spent on alleviating poverty."

Mr Geary concludes his letter with, "My donations to the university now flow to more worthy causes."
This example is the total antithesis of what a University should be doing. The students need to have the freedom (and ability) to question and debate global issues rather than simply (and blindly) toeing the so called "progressive" line.

Posted by: Bill Dec 31 2017, 12:46 PM
The students need to have the freedom (and ability) to question and debate global issues rather than simply (and blindly) toeing the so called "progressive" line.

They also need to be told the truth Charles.

The $4 Million offered to the UWA by Tony Abbott, and rejected, was also rejected by every University in Australia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg

"In April 2015, it was announced that an alliance between the Copenhagen Consensus Center and the University of Western Australia would see the establishment of the Australian Consensus Centre, a new policy research center at the UWA Business School. The University described the Center's goals as a "focus on applying an economic lens to proposals to achieve good for Australia, the region and the world, prioritizing those initiatives which produce the most social value per dollar spent.".[18] This appointment came under intense scrutiny, particularly when leaked documents revealed that the Australian government had approached UWA and offered to fund the Consensus Centre, information subsequently confirmed by a senior UWA lecturer.[19] Reports indicated that Prime Minister Tony Abbott's office was directly responsible for Lomborg's elevation.[20] $4 million of the total funding for the Center was to be provided by the Australian federal government,[14] with UWA not contributing any funding for the centre.[21]

On 8 May 2015 UWA cancelled the contract for hosting the Australian Consensus Centre as "the proposed centre was untenable and lacked academic support".[22][23] The Australian federal education minister, Christopher Pyne, said that he would find another university to host the ACC.

In July 2015, Flinders University senior management began quietly canvassing its staff about a plan to host the renamed Lomborg Consensus Centre at the University, likely in the Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences. A week later the story was broken on Twitter by the NTEU (National Tertiary Education Union)[24] and Scott Ludlam.[25] The story appeared the next day in The Australian,[26] but described as "academic conversations" with no mention of Bjorn Lomborg’s involvement and portrayed as a grassroots desire for the Centre by the University.[27] The following week, a story appeared in the Guardian quoting two Flinders University academics and an internal document demonstrating staff’s withering rejection of the idea.[28] Flinders staff and students vowed to fight against the establishment of any Centre or any partnership with Lomborg,[29] citing his lack of scientific credibility, his lack of academic legitimacy and the political nature of the process of establishing the Centre with the Abbott federal government. The Australian Youth Climate Coalition and 350.org launched a national campaign to support staff and students in their rejection of Lomborg.[30]

On 21 October 2015 education minister Simon Birmingham told a senate committee the offered funding had been withdrawn.[31] It was subsequently unclear whether the Australian Government would honour its original commitment and transfer the funds directly to the Centre to cover the costs incurred, in particular given Lomborg's unique expertise and contribution."

Posted by: Alicia Dec 31 2017, 01:23 PM
Yes Bill, that would be correct that all the Australian universities rejected the offer, freedom of speech, opinion, thought and ideas are not welcomed in Australian educational establishments unless the “progressive” line is toed. Note that I did not include “facts” in my list. I do miss my daily dose of the west. http://fairdinkumnewschat.com/rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Charles Dec 31 2017, 01:29 PM
"They also need to be told the truth Charles."

Rather than being told "the truth" I would prefer to see students at this level seeking the truth rather than believing everything they hear and read.

For example, rather than taking for granted one particular section of Wikipedia regarding Professor Lomborg, you might have included the following excerpt:

In 2009, Business Insider cited Lomborg as one of "The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics". While Lomborg campaigned against the Kyoto Protocol and other measures to cut carbon emissions in the short-term, he argued for adaptation to short-term temperature rises, and for spending money on research and development for longer-term environmental solutions. His issue is not with the reality of climate change, but rather with the economic and political approaches being taken (or not taken) to meet the challenges of that climate change. He is a strong advocate for focusing attention and resources on what he perceives as far more pressing world problems, such as AIDS, malaria and malnutrition. In his critique of the 2012 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Lomborg stated: "Global warming is by no means our main environmental threat." In 2011 and 2012, Lomborg was named a Top 100 Global Thinker by Foreign Policy "for looking more right than ever on the politics of climate change".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg

Sadly the academics of this world are more interested in following ideological dogma regarding issues instead of engaging in healthy debate where others' opinions are respected and analysed rather than dismissed out of hand.

In the case of Professor Lomborg, who clearly states that "his issue is not with the reality of climate change, but rather with the economic and political approaches being taken (or not taken) to meet the challenges of that climate change", he has been dismissed by many as a climate change skeptic when clearly he is not.

Posted by: Charles Dec 31 2017, 01:33 PM
A question for you Bill. Where do you get the idea that "The $4 Million offered to the UWA by Tony Abbott, and rejected, was also rejected by every University in Australia" when UWA and Flinders are the only universities cited?

Posted by: lee Dec 31 2017, 02:23 PM
QUOTE (Charles @ Dec 31 2017, 11:33 AM)
A question for you Bill. Where do you get the idea that "The $4 Million offered to the UWA by Tony Abbott, and rejected, was also rejected by <span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>every University in Australia" when UWA and Flinders are the only universities cited?</span>



Because the other institutions are more like TAFE's rather than Universities? They merely teach a trade. http://fairdinkumnewschat.com/tongue.gif

Posted by: Bill Dec 31 2017, 04:16 PM
For example, rather than taking for granted one particular section of Wikipedia regarding Professor Lomborg, you might have included the following excerpt:

I did provide the link Charles. The only reason that I chose the excerpt that I did was to highlight the section in your post that mentioned the $4 Million from Abbott to fund the Australian Consensus Centre

A question for you Bill. Where do you get the idea that "The $4 Million offered to the UWA by Tony Abbott, and rejected, was also rejected by every University in Australia" when UWA and Flinders are the only universities cited?

Pedantry aside Charles - If Abbott's $4 Million was offered to any other university, we would have heard of it, and many/some (take your pick http://fairdinkumnewschat.com/biggrin.gif ) have been at pains to ridicule the idea of a government 'sponsored' Australian Consensus Centre run by Bjorn Lomborg as little more than a political exercise by the climate change deniers within the Abbott government..

Posted by: Bill Dec 31 2017, 04:24 PM
Hi lee
Because the other institutions are more like TAFE's rather than Universities? They merely teach a trade

ANU ?, Melbourne Uni, Monash, the ANU, UQ, QUT, USQ (University of Sothern QLD (Toowoomba) ? etc. etc.

Trades lee ? - Maybe you are thinking of the 'private colleges offering 'VET courses. Please explain.

Posted by: Bill Dec 31 2017, 04:42 PM
QUOTE (Alicia @ Dec 31 2017, 01:23 PM)
Yes Bill, that would be correct that all the Australian universities rejected the offer, freedom of speech, opinion, thought and ideas are not welcomed in Australian educational establishments unless the “progressive” line is toed. Note that I did not include “facts” in my list. I do miss my daily dose of the west. http://fairdinkumnewschat.com/rolleyes.gif

There's nothing wrong with 'freedom of speech' Alicia. If I remember correctly Bjorn Lomborg had a number of speaking engagements in Australia about the time that Abbott made his....oops.....OUR $4 Million offer.

The issue is not about 'freedom of speech', but whether Australian taxpayers should fork out $4 Million so that a marginal controversial character like Bjorn Lomborg can have a platform at a major Australian University. (University said NO. http://fairdinkumnewschat.com/biggrin.gif )

As far as I am aware, nowhere ourside of Denmark has made a similar offer to Bjorn Lomborg.

The money would have been better spent on the homeless or veterans mental health http://fairdinkumnewschat.b1.jcink.com/uploads/fairdinkumnewschat/smiley_IMHO.png ............

....or culling the crocodiles in Far North Queensland......Did you know that every three months someone is ripped part by a crocodile in FNQ ? (Source: Bob Katter http://fairdinkumnewschat.com/biggrin.gif )

While I remember.......


Happy New Year Everyone. Stay safe http://fairdinkumnewschat.b1.jcink.com/uploads/fairdinkumnewschat/lbill.gif

Posted by: lee Dec 31 2017, 04:45 PM
Bill said:
QUOTE
little more than a political exercise by the climate change deniers within the Abbott government..


Bill, you will have to remind me, who denies climate changes? http://fairdinkumnewschat.com/wink.gif


Posted by: lee Dec 31 2017, 04:51 PM
Bill said:

QUOTE
ANU ?, Melbourne Uni, Monash, the ANU, UQ, QUT, USQ (University of Sothern QLD (Toowoomba) ? etc. etc.

Trades lee ? - Maybe you are thinking of the 'private colleges offering 'VET courses. Please explain.


Well, they don't promote critical thinking, because they don't promote free speech. They must be glorified trade training centres, Doctors are a trade group, a specialised trade group, but a trade group nevertheless. Social Scientists seem to be some kind of underclass, not really scientists. http://fairdinkumnewschat.com/tongue.gif

An Emeritus professor of Social Science recently wrote a letter to the editor expounding the 97% consensus. A respondent cited the Cook et al (2013) study and quoted part of the abstract.

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

It was pointed out that 97.1% of 32.6% was not 97% of climate scientists, let alone all scientists.

Posted by: lee Dec 31 2017, 04:59 PM
Bill said:
QUOTE
The issue is not about 'freedom of speech', but whether Australian taxpayers should fork out $4 Million so that a marginal controversial character like Bjorn Lomborg can have a platform at a major Australian University. (University said NO. http://fairdinkumnewschat.com/biggrin.gif )


So seeing as the world has spent Billions of dollars on climate cahnge for no net benefit, perhaps it is time to look at mitigation strategies.

Posted by: Charles Dec 31 2017, 05:08 PM
Bill, you say, "Pedantry aside Charles - If Abbott's $4 Million was offered to any other university, we would have heard of it, and many/some (take your pick) have been at pains to ridicule the idea of a government 'sponsored' Australian Consensus Centre run by Bjorn Lomborg as little more than a political exercise by the climate change deniers within the Abbott government." yet it is clear from the following statement: "His issue is not with the reality of climate change, but rather with the economic and political approaches being taken (or not taken) to meet the challenges of that climate change." that Bjorn Lomborg isn't a climate change denier. He has simply challenged the amounts of money spent on talkfests, research and international agreements when, in his opinion, that money could be better spent on other concerns.

By focusing on Tony Abbott and Bjorn Lomberg you are sidestepping the main issue, and that is universities should be institutions where free speech, critical thinking and healthy debate should take precedence over ideological dogma and politically correct "progressive" censorship.

Posted by: Bill Dec 31 2017, 06:44 PM
So seeing as the world has spent Billions of dollars on climate cahnge for no net benefit, perhaps it is time to look at mitigation strategies.

Sounds good to me lee - maybe we could start by not burning fossil fuels. http://fairdinkumnewschat.com/biggrin.gif http://fairdinkumnewschat.b1.jcink.com/uploads/fairdinkumnewschat/lbill.gif

Posted by: Bill Dec 31 2017, 06:59 PM
Bjorn Lomborg isn't a climate change denier. He has simply challenged the amounts of money spent on talkfests, research and international agreements when, in his opinion, that money could be better spent on other concerns.

You are familiar with the term obfuscation, are you Charles ? http://fairdinkumnewschat.b1.jcink.com/uploads/fairdinkumnewschat/lbill.gif

Obfuscation: is the obscuring of the intended meaning of communication by making the message difficult to understand, usually with confusing and ambiguous language.

Bjorn Lomborg is a serial obfuscator who makes a living out of 'speaking tours' lecturing climate change deniers.

When Abbott's offer of $4 million was unable to be delivered. the Australian Dept. of 'Education'. wrote out a cheque for around $160,000 payable to Lomborg's Consensus Centre in Denmark.

Obfuscation has it's own rewards apparently.

Posted by: Bill Dec 31 2017, 07:17 PM
QUOTE (lee @ Dec 31 2017, 04:51 PM)

Well, they don't promote critical thinking, because they don't promote free speech. They must be glorified trade training centres, Doctors are a trade group, a specialised trade group, but a trade group  nevertheless. Social Scientists seem to be some kind of underclass, not really scientists. http://fairdinkumnewschat.com/tongue.gif
An Emeritus professor of Social Science recently wrote a letter to the editor expounding the 97% consensus. A respondent cited the Cook et al (2013) study and quoted part of the abstract.
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."
It was pointed out that 97.1% of 32.6% was not 97% of climate scientists, let alone all scientists.


I'm just guessing here lee, but I'm sure that if you provided a citation as to the article you mention and the name of the Emeritus professor of Social Science who is responsible for the quote you posted, I could participate in a proper discussion as to the relevance of the Emeritus professor of Social Science ability/qualifications/or motivation for his/her view.

It looks to me like the Emeritus professor of Social Science has indulged in a classic example of 'cherry picking' data from statistics to arrive at a desired outcome.

I'll await further informat5ion at your leisure. Happy New Year lee. http://fairdinkumnewschat.b1.jcink.com/uploads/fairdinkumnewschat/lbill.gif

Posted by: lee Dec 31 2017, 08:01 PM
Bill said:
QUOTE
I'm just guessing here lee, but I'm sure that if you provided a citation as to the article you mention and the name of the Emeritus professor of Social Science who is responsible for the quote you posted,


Actually the Emeritus Professor of Social Science, from University of Adelaide claimed the 97% consensus.

The respondent provided a part of the abstract from Cook et al (2013).
Sorry forgot the link -

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Environmental Research Letters, Volume 8, Number 2

The respondent also pointed out that 97.1% of 32.6% was not 97% of climate scientists let alone all scientists.

Sorry for any confusion.

QUOTE
It looks to me like the Emeritus professor of Social Science has indulged in a classic example of 'cherry picking' data from statistics to arrive at a desired outcome.


Sorry that would be the respondent. And the quote was direct from the John Cook paper.John Cook is head of Skeptical Science. John Cook is a research assistant professor at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University,

Posted by: Alicia Dec 31 2017, 09:20 PM
Hi Bill, it is still my opinion that free speech is being stifled in many of our educational institutions. There are many who would disagree with me, as is their right. There is also a lot of social pressure being applied to those who do not agree with the current “progressive” mantra. From where I sit, it looks a lot like the “education” which went on in Maoist China and such totalitarian countries, or even, dare I say, currently in North Korea.

Posted by: Charles Jan 1 2018, 08:19 AM
Hi Bill ... and Happy New Year to you (and all other FDNC members).

You continue to attack Bjorn Lomborg (and Tony Abbott) yet fail to comment on the current trends in Universities that stifle free speech and critical thinking.

On the topic of Bjorn Lomborg I would point out that he has been named in Time magazine's 100 most influential people in the world and that his published books include such thought provoking titles as "How to Spend $75 Billion to Make the World a Better Place".

Instead of accusing him of obfuscation, perhaps you should consider the merits of some of his writing (provided below).

"When it comes to the Paris agreement, even the best case scenarios promise tiny improvements at too high a cost."

"Predicting the apocalypse doesn't help build a realistic, sensible strategy."

"Green energy needs new ideas to drive down prices, which means investing in serious R & D."


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/author/Bjorn+Lomborg

Getting back to the main topic of this thread - "Universities Stifling Free Speech" - I await your contribution to this topic.
https://s20.postimg.org/x68t0lwf1/1120275_KASPa_Hdl.gif



Posted by: scepo Jan 1 2018, 09:40 AM
Good luck with that Charles.

Posted by: Flin Jan 1 2018, 10:37 AM
"How to Spend $75 Billion to Make the World a Better Place".

We have a different book in Australia written by Kevin Rudd.

"How to waste $50 Billion to make an obsolete broadband network"

Posted by: lee Jan 1 2018, 11:04 AM
QUOTE
It looks to me like the Emeritus professor of Social Science has indulged in a classic example of 'cherry picking' data from statistics to arrive at a desired outcome.


Yes. The alarmist mantra rules over all. http://fairdinkumnewschat.com/tongue.gif

Posted by: Bill Jan 1 2018, 03:53 PM
Getting back to the main topic of this thread - "Universities Stifling Free Speech" - I await your contribution to this topic.

Hi Charles

It may have skipped your attention, but I didn't respond to your OP, only to your subsequent post regarding Bjorn Lomborg, and John Geary. http://fairdinkumnewschat.b1.jcink.com/uploads/fairdinkumnewschat/lbill.gif

I didn't comment on Gemmas opinion piece - she's entitled to have an opinion - that's what 'free speech' is all about. http://fairdinkumnewschat.com/biggrin.gif

. The fact that Gemma chose to base her opinion piece on an IPA (Institute of Public Affairs research paper is significant, so her conclusions are not surprising. I'll bet, without checking http://fairdinkumnewschat.com/biggrin.gif , that Gemma is a regular opinion writer for Rupert's UnAustralian.

I only chose to comment when you opened the discussion up to include Bjorn Lomborg and John Geary.

John Geary is now retired, but in his working life he was an advocate of the gas fracking industry, so he has always had a dog in the fight regarding climate change. No surprises there. http://fairdinkumnewschat.com/biggrin.gif

I hope that's cleared things up - scepo will be pleased that I took the trouble to respond. http://fairdinkumnewschat.com/biggrin.gif http://fairdinkumnewschat.b1.jcink.com/uploads/fairdinkumnewschat/lbill.gif

Posted by: lee Jan 1 2018, 04:10 PM
QUOTE
he was an advocate of the gas fracking industry, so he has always had a dog in the fight regarding climate change.


How does fracking for gas affect climate change as opposed to normal drilling for gas?

Posted by: Charles Jan 1 2018, 05:10 PM
The fact that Gemma chose to base her opinion piece on an IPA (Institute of Public Affairs research paper is significant, so her conclusions are not surprising. I'll bet, without checking, that Gemma is a regular opinion writer for Rupert's UnAustralian.

The only newspaper owned by Rupert in WA is the Sunday Times. Gemma Tognini writes a regular column for the West Australian (the opening post is one of her columns in the West) and is a weekly contributor to ABC Radio Perth. She may contribute to some of Rupert's news outlets but this particular WA column is, in my opinion, original and independent.

Ms Tognini established her own corporate affairs and PR firm and, in 2014, won Telstra's award as WA's top woman business owner. She is also on the board of Salvation Army (WA) and the Starlight Foundation.

I'm an admirer of her contributions and the open and honest way she addresses issues.




Posted by: scepo Jan 1 2018, 05:47 PM
QUOTE (lee @ Jan 1 2018, 04:10 PM)
QUOTE
he was an advocate of the gas fracking industry, so he has always had a dog in the fight regarding climate change.


How does fracking for gas affect climate change as opposed to normal drilling for gas?




It doesn't.




I hope that's cleared things up - scepo will be pleased that I took the trouble to respond.


With fancy footwork like yours Bill, You must have been one hell of a dancer in your younger years. http://fairdinkumnewschat.com/biggrin.gif http://fairdinkumnewschat.com/wink.gif http://fairdinkumnewschat.b1.jcink.com/uploads/fairdinkumnewschat/smiley_don_t_know.gif

Posted by: lee Jan 1 2018, 06:54 PM
QUOTE
The only newspaper owned by Rupert in WA is the Sunday Times.


Seven West Media, owner of the West Australian, now owns the Sunday Times.

Posted by: Bill Jan 2 2018, 12:24 PM
QUOTE (lee @ Jan 1 2018, 04:10 PM)
QUOTE
he was an advocate of the gas fracking industry, so he has always had a dog in the fight regarding climate change.


How does fracking for gas affect climate change as opposed to normal drilling for gas?


It doesn't lee - the main effects are the contamination of the underground water. Fracking is the most extreme form of fossil fuel mining, and for John Geary to have been involved in advocating that would seem to indicate that he was employed to do just that.

Someone may like to check out his previous employment. I can't be bothered. http://fairdinkumnewschat.com/biggrin.gif

Posted by: Bill Jan 2 2018, 12:29 PM
With fancy footwork like yours Bill, You must have been one hell of a dancer in your younger years

I was scepo - and I still taught regular Line Dancing classes in my sixties. http://fairdinkumnewschat.com/biggrin.gif http://fairdinkumnewschat.b1.jcink.com/uploads/fairdinkumnewschat/lbill.gif

Posted by: lee Jan 2 2018, 12:43 PM
QUOTE
It doesn't lee - the main effects are the contamination of the underground water


Strange then to link them. http://fairdinkumnewschat.com/wink.gif

How did your research go on the 97% consensus?

Posted by: Bear Jan 2 2018, 05:30 PM
Research conducted by the Institute of Public Affairs and published at the end of last year in the Weekend Australian paints a clear and frightening picture of just how real this issue is. The IPA conducted an audit and analysis of university policies, procedures and guidelines. It found 81 per cent of Australia’s 42 universities are actively hostile to free speech. Actively hostile. That means the people running these joints are actively trying to restrict intellectual freedom.


This paragraph from Charles's original post certainly speaks for itself - a well written piece, it is a shame that students are being brainwashed into a way of acting and thinking, I would rather they learnt to be themselves and form their own opinions - this can only be achieved via 'free speech'.

While positions are held by those with far left socialist views students will continue to have their 'intellectual freedom' restricted.

Many subjects have been infiltrated with social issues, social justice being the most obvious...
http://fairdinkumnewschat.com/rolleyes.gif


Posted by: Bill Jan 2 2018, 05:41 PM
This paragraph from Charles's original post certainly speaks for itself

Only if you have any faith in any 'research' done by the Institute of Public Affairs maaaate.

I don't. http://fairdinkumnewschat.com/biggrin.gif http://fairdinkumnewschat.b1.jcink.com/uploads/fairdinkumnewschat/lbill.gif

Posted by: Charles Jan 2 2018, 05:48 PM
"Only if you have any faith in any 'research' done by the Institute of Public Affairs maaaate. I don't."

Believe what suits your poltical bias and reject anything that doesn't. A rather blinkered view!

Posted by: Bear Jan 2 2018, 06:01 PM
Speaking from my own personal experience, the research tends to be accurate Bill - I have seen, and heard, much of what Gemma Tognini has said in this article.

This part rings true...
http://fairdinkumnewschat.com/wink.gif

It’s about the systematic removal of circumstances in which young people can, through normal, everyday life, develop independent and critical thinking by dealing with people who hold opposing views — even ones most of us might find a tad gauche.

I’m going to go a step further. Learning to deal with offence — rather than the offence itself, is a gift. It’s a life lesson. It teaches you to think for yourself, toss out the garbage, keep what works, listen with an open mind, and respectfully walk away without setting fire to something or calling a lawyer.

Posted by: Bill Jan 2 2018, 10:23 PM
QUOTE (Charles @ Jan 2 2018, 05:48 PM)
"Only if you have any faith in any 'research' done by the Institute of Public Affairs maaaate.      I don't."

Believe what suits your poltical bias and reject anything that doesn't. A rather blinkered view!


Believe what suits your poltical bias and reject anything that doesn't.

And that Charles is the prevailing view of the majority of FDNC members - hadn't you noticed. http://fairdinkumnewschat.com/biggrin.gif http://fairdinkumnewschat.b1.jcink.com/uploads/fairdinkumnewschat/lbill.gif

It begins with the stories posted for comment that have anything to do with politics or social issues.

They come from within the bubble, and the comments only tend to reinforce a prevailing view, with no attempt to, maybe, understand and explore why a situation may exist, and maybe offer up some solutions based on our members life experiences.

The 'solutions' don't have to be correct or even workable, but the end result is that we will have had a conversation.

The topic on the Sudanese gangs is a prime example of what I'm talking about.

As soon as I saw Turnbull on TV going on about the Sudanese gangs, I thought.....any moment now, and Bear will post something about the APEX gangs taking over the country. No offence Bear, but you know that. http://fairdinkumnewschat.com/biggrin.gif

Obviously the situation in Victoria needs to be addressed but to suggest that the problem exists just in the Sudanese community is just wrong.

Go to the City of Logan (south of Brisbane) and the same problems exist - except there it is the Pacific Islander youth who are running amok.

We won't get those conversations going if we continue to base those conversations on "what suits our poltical bias and reject anything that doesn't"

It's really up to the members whether they want to have conversations or just want FDNC to be a venue to have a rant. Doesn't matter to me either way, but my preferred option is to engage in a conversation. http://fairdinkumnewschat.b1.jcink.com/uploads/fairdinkumnewschat/lbill.gif


Posted by: Charles Jan 3 2018, 08:30 AM
A well written post Bill, but one that is at odds with your modus operandi.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but the contributors to FDNC are often critical of governments of either political persuasion whereas I have yet to read anything from you critical of the Left side of politics.

You cite the story of Sudanese gangs as a prime example of "the prevailing view of the majority of FDNC members" yet it is a thread that I and others haven't commented on.

You seem to enjoy portraying yourself as FDNC's lone voice supporting one political stance but, in so doing, you make sweeping statements about the other members without acknowledging any originality of thought and individual views they might hold.

Practise what you preached in your last post and you might be regarded with some credibility rather than a left wing supporter who attempts to discredit as you have done in this thread. I'm talking about you insinuating the author of the original piece was in some way a Rupert Murdock lacky, that Bjorn Lomborg is a climate change denier and that John Geary's views on free speech in Universities should be disregarded because he was once employed in the mining industry. This isn't "conversation", it's an all too prevalent tactic used by so called "progressives" to label and name-call all who disagree with them.

Posted by: lee Jan 3 2018, 11:00 AM
QUOTE (Bill @ Jan 2 2018, 03:41 PM)
Only if you have any faith in any 'research' done by the Institute of Public Affairs maaaate.

I don't.  http://fairdinkumnewschat.com/biggrin.gif  http://fairdinkumnewschat.b1.jcink.com/uploads/fairdinkumnewschat/lbill.gif



Perhaps if it had been released by the Grattan Institute? http://fairdinkumnewschat.com/tongue.gif

Posted by: Bear Jan 3 2018, 03:03 PM
"As soon as I saw Turnbull on TV going on about the Sudanese gangs, I thought.....any moment now, and Bear will post something about the APEX gangs taking over the country. No offence Bear, but you know that." http://fairdinkumnewschat.com/biggrin.gif

I post on a range of topics Bill, you only focus on the few posts that you disagree with like a true social justice warrior. http://fairdinkumnewschat.com/biggrin.gif

Where did I say;
"the APEX gangs taking over the country." http://fairdinkumnewschat.b1.jcink.com/uploads/fairdinkumnewschat/smiley_don_t_know.gif

I stand by what I have said in regards to this topic.


This paragraph from Charles's original post certainly speaks for itself - a well written piece, it is a shame that students are being brainwashed into a way of acting and thinking, I would rather they learnt to be themselves and form their own opinions - this can only be achieved via 'free speech'.

While positions are held by those with far left socialist views students will continue to have their 'intellectual freedom' restricted.

Many subjects have been infiltrated with social issues, social justice being the most obvious...



Posted by: charka Jan 3 2018, 10:13 PM
We saw that with ssm

'
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)