Hacker News Reader

Comment by keyle | Hacker News Reader

I've visited Singapore twice. I've settled in Australia, originally from Europe.

I was really worried when I visited Singapore and took their 'tourist' tour. They put you in a bus, drive you around all jetlagged and give you orange juice on the beach. Completely surreal.

What really put me off was their unconditional love for their government. The woman 'tour guide' in the bus just couldn't stop thanking the government for giving them so much. It was unhealthy. Yet they don't own anything and they live in towers. Sure it was really pretty but it freaked me out a little. I felt a deep communism in this pro-capitalist ex-colony.

I'm no die hard capitalist but I prefer the australian way of owning my own life and freely talking crap of the government.

View on HN

Australians have no constitutional right to free speech, and some forms of speech are expressly criminalised via the sedition and various vilification acts.

The only form of speech that enjoys some protection is political speech. So whilst Australian's can freely talk crap about the government, Australia is far from a beacon of free speech.

Are you referring to rights of anarchism?

I'm no trespasser and trouble maker, but I can tell you that anybody is free to do whatever they intend to in Australia, so as long as it doesn't impair other people doing so. In other words, you're as free as you can be without causing damage to others. I'm not sure what you're referring to though.

On my way home I saw dudes roller-blading half naked in the city. I call that freedom. Do you have examples?

No. I'm referring to the constitutional right to free speech.

The statement "anybody is free to do whatever they intend to in Australia, so as long as it doesn't impair other people doing so" is as absurd as it is false.

There are reams of legislation to prevent you from doing everything from arriving unlawfully by boat, to lying about your income, to using a wire carriage service to cause offence.

As to speech, here is a simplistic example: Let's say I walk into Federation Square and say to you "Go and burn down the Parliament, you useless white cunt!" Depending on who takes offence to my comments I can be:

a) Issued an on the spot fine for AUD$238.50 for using language likely to cause offence in a public place.

b) Prosecuted for racial vilification.

c) Prosecuted for sedition.

The fact that all but a) are highly unlikely does nothing to progress the case that "anybody is free to do whatever they intend to in Australia".

I'm sorry, but I think you are confused regarding what constitutes free speech. Either that, or a very poor example you chose...

I assure you I am not confused as to what constitutes free speech.

In the comment to which you replied I'm merely countering the claim that "anybody is free to do whatever they intend to in Australia, so as long as it doesn't impair other people doing so", with respect to speech.

Mind you, I did admit the example was simplistic, but it captured the essence of the three most contentious classes of prohibited speech without verbosity.

The only claims I have made with respect to free speech are that:

a) Australians have no constitutional right to free speech.

b) There are laws that criminalise certain kinds of speech.

c) There is no constitutional impediment to the creation of new laws which criminalise other forms of speech.

d) Political speech enjoys some protection.

Free speech means being free to say things others might not like being said.

If free speech only covers things that others might find acceptable, then it is completely meaningless.

I live in a poor neighborhood in Indiana (USA) (ah, but the house was cheap) and I would really like point (a). Speaking personally.

I call that limited. If he was naked then it would be truly freedom, freedom to be a human.

Remember that in Australia, the constitution isn't as foundational as it is in the USA. Just because it's not in the constitution doesn't mean that it's not enshrined in the consciousness of the people.

I come from New Zealand, and although there's a lot of rivalry between Australia and New Zealand, I nevertheless consider Australia to be a second home -- even though I've only been there twice.

Consciousness or not, it's not enshrined in law.

What is enshrined in law, however, is that certain types of speech are a criminal offence. Further, there is no constitutional impediment to Parliament passing legislation which criminalises other forms of speech.

And the American Congress routinely ignores its constitution with the complicity of the Supreme Court. What's your point? Are you suggesting that a constitution is enough? It's matter of who gets elected too, you know.

The Australian constitution kind of claims New Zealand.

An Australian friend of mine mentioned that some time ago the British government dissolved the Australian government with a phone call. Can they still do that?

When you take a look around Singapore's neigbor countries and their living conditions, you must admit that the Sing' government did a pretty good job so far. And then there is the asian culture of not being to critical to the "superior". You even have that in democratic Japan and SKorea. Talking crap about the gov is more a Western life style (mine too, 'cause I m from Europe too, but have lived in Asia long enough to know that there are different ways of seing things).

And talking about free speech: Have a look at the Internet censorship laws in Australia!

At the moment, the only part of the internet in Australia that is censored by law are some usenet groups.

I think we really need to watch out when we label certain sorts of thing Western. I know it usually comes from an attempt to be culturally sensitive, but it's just not true and potentially harmful.

Gender equality is not rooted in Western culture. It sucked being a woman equally in Glasgow, Shanghai & Algiers. Gender equality was spread with difficulty and imperfectly over a decade in throughout liberal democracies and communist countries. It skipped the third world, but gender equality is no more part of Spanish culture then it is Qatari.

Same for "western" democracy, western medicine and a big chuck of western values.

It wasn't cool to criticize kings or dictators anywhere at some point.

Western culture does include the changes since the enlightenment era and forward, you realize? Culture isn't static, and gender equality has become a part of western culture -- at least in principle. Similarly, freedom of speech has slowly become a part of western culture, although it has a way to go as well.

This wasn't always the case, but that doesn't disqualify the current situation.

On gender equality, you speak in terms of black and white when in reality there are many shades of grey. For example, you say it "skipped the third world" but I think if you've ever been to the Philippines, which is usually classified as a third world country, you'd see that women have just as many rights and freedoms as in some Western countries. Filipino women can become doctors and engineers, and many have jobs in government.

That's true. I painted with a broad brush. There are even examples of gender equality in traditional cultures. Not all 1st or 2nd world countries as far along the way either. The 3rd world grouping here is pretty arbitrary to my point.

Sure. Its not genetic or anything. Critical views towards authority have developed in the West in the past 500 years, with the rise of protestantism (as in "you talk to God yourself and not through some father figure mediator") and later through Enlightenment (as in "use your brain, goddamit!"). It took us quite a while and quite a bit of luck, too, to get where we are today.

Most of those things did not happen elsewhere. Hence my comment above.

I'm not sure that if you go back to post reformation or post enlightenment Europe you'd be doing any better than countries where those movements did not take place. Racial oppression the US between its founding (Jefferson & Paine or not) and relatively recently was awful. Women's suffrage and social equality spread over the 19th century, 200 years after Kant.

Check out indian politics - for a real taste of chaotic democracy in action. Here folks get to talk crap about a whole bunch of governments - from city, state and national - and there's a whole bunch of 'em to talk crap about - unlike the two-party plutocracy of the US, as one point of contrast.

s/communism/totalitarianism/g and you'll make better sense.

Thank you, I hate it when the two are used interchangeably.

In practice they go hand-in-hand

I know many totalitarian regimes that aren't communist.

Communist countries tend to be totalitarian, the reverse isn't true.

That was the tour guide -- you get a completely different version of things in a candid discussion with friends who live there.

I am by no means an expert on the politics there at all, but if one thinks that the us political system is not more corrupt at the highest levels then is simply delusional -- yet life is good for most of us in the US.

I think that one can create a bit of there reality and are not 100% subjected to the douchebaggery of their government, same goes for singapore -- just dont make the cardinal mistake (which applies equally globally) of being poor.

Yes, but protesting isn't illegal in the us.

No, it's just restricted to "Free Speech Zones".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com