Philip Ruddock, attorney general in the Howard government (reputedly once an actual small `l' liberal) is looking into the status of the Hizb ut-Tahrir, apparently a muslim group that advocates the introduction of sharia law and rejects liberal democracy, capitalism and Western values.
At the very same time more and more information is being unearthed about the links between the the very same Howard government plus various other Liberal Party of Australia (LiPA) types and the Exclusive Brethren, a christian group that advocates strict following of the bible and rejects liberal democracy and Western values.
Just to recap, there are only two obvious differences between Hizb ut-Tahrir (HUT) and the Exclusive Brethren (EB). Firstly HUT are muslims while the EB are christians though they seem to have more in common with each other than most of their respective coreligionists.
Secondly HUT are reportedly against capitalism (not to be confused with the Hutts) whilst the EB seem to be of the opinion that the accumulation of wealth is the ultimate form of worship (not like that other EB who is a giver).
It is therefore no wonder the Howardites are looking into HUT but not EB... obviously HUT are communists. They'd be under the bed but they're not really into that type of thing, and, bed and Hizb ut-Tahrir doesn't really rhyme. Also as there are apparently only about 12 of them in the whole country they would have difficultly hiding under any significant proportion of Australian beds.
The Howardites obviously have no problem with advocating ridiculous laws or rejecting liberal democracy or western values, indeed these are defining characteristics of this government. Thus their getting into the bed with the EB was inevitable given the ability of the EB to pay and the willingness of LiPA to prostitute themselves (sincere and heartfelt apologies to any prostitutes reading this).
We can all appreciate why LiPA would want to keep private the fact that they are in bed going at it with a bunch of christian loonies. It isn't a pretty picture. Can't really blame the HUT for not wanting to be under the bed with what is apparently going on in there.
It is bad enough that the Liberals sell themselves to their regulars, a horde of corporate sponsors, but to do so to the EB is a new and disturbing perversion. These are people who are deeply suspicious of anything thought up after the Bronze Age, which includes the new testament and liberalism. Even the LiPA should have standards higher than this.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Liberals caught in bed with the Exclusive Brethren
The Liberals have been caught in bed with the Exclusive Brethren but are trying to claim that they did not have sexual relations with that party, despite the stains on the blue dress.
In the last Tasmanian state election there was a rabid and misleading anti-Green advertising campaign subsequently revealed to have been authorised by members of the Exclusive Brethren, one of christianity's answers to the taliban.
It has now in turn been revealed that this campaign was run by an advertising company controlled by prominent members of the Liberal party. But it goes on.
This same company of course also ran the Liberal's campaign. When it came time to ante up for the campaign the Liberal party was invoiced for the whole lot ie including what was purportedly by individual members of the EB.
The director of the Liberals claims it was all a mistake. Apparently there should have been separate invoices to maintain the impolite legal fiction that they were separate.
Legally he may be right, just as Clinton may have been with his famous denial, but similarly it is clear that the law and reality have violently parted ways if that is the case.
The Liberals have given the EB exemptions under industrial relations, family and various other laws. So the EB are now to a considerable extent exempt from the sames laws as the rest of us.
In return the EB do some of the political dirty work that the Liberals can't be seen to be doing themselves, namely campaigns attacking the Greens using every underhanded trick in the book.
It is a corruption of the political process. The Liberal government gives legal exemptions via parliament to a cult in return for political contributions for the Liberal party. The contributions don't legally go to the Liberals, but the Tasmanian evidence shows that they are running the campaigns.
In the last Tasmanian state election there was a rabid and misleading anti-Green advertising campaign subsequently revealed to have been authorised by members of the Exclusive Brethren, one of christianity's answers to the taliban.
It has now in turn been revealed that this campaign was run by an advertising company controlled by prominent members of the Liberal party. But it goes on.
This same company of course also ran the Liberal's campaign. When it came time to ante up for the campaign the Liberal party was invoiced for the whole lot ie including what was purportedly by individual members of the EB.
The director of the Liberals claims it was all a mistake. Apparently there should have been separate invoices to maintain the impolite legal fiction that they were separate.
Legally he may be right, just as Clinton may have been with his famous denial, but similarly it is clear that the law and reality have violently parted ways if that is the case.
The Liberals have given the EB exemptions under industrial relations, family and various other laws. So the EB are now to a considerable extent exempt from the sames laws as the rest of us.
In return the EB do some of the political dirty work that the Liberals can't be seen to be doing themselves, namely campaigns attacking the Greens using every underhanded trick in the book.
It is a corruption of the political process. The Liberal government gives legal exemptions via parliament to a cult in return for political contributions for the Liberal party. The contributions don't legally go to the Liberals, but the Tasmanian evidence shows that they are running the campaigns.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Free Speech
There were two news stories today that while relatively trivial in the great scheme of things I found interesting. Firstly organisers of the Sydney Big Day Out are reportedly banning people from bringing Australian flags to the event.
Supposedly this is to counter aggressive nationalism that was displayed at the event last year in the wake of the Cronulla riots. I don't agree with the ban, as to do so in effect surrenders the flag as a symbol to the nationalists, and gives them a cause around which to rally.
I am however not organising the Big Day Out and if clubs can enforce dress codes then I don't see why the BDO people can't as well. Not being the most fashionable of people I have fallen victim to dress codes in the past and don't like them, but their merits are an argument for another time.
Today my point follows from the growing chorus of condemnation that news of the ban has elicited from the Prime Minister down to various flunkies who managed to elbow there way into shot.
Flunkies such as Andrew Robb, the federal parliamentary secretary for immigration, who has called for the event to be cancelled if the ban remains in place. Further proof that there is no old testament god as Robb was not immediately struck down by lightning for his gross hypocrisy.
Clive Hamilton and Sarah Maddison are about to release a new book outlining the extent of this hypocrisy called Silencing Dissent. It outlines how the Howard government has systematically gone about silencing its critics, and generally undermining democracy in this country.
The very same day that all these great and powerful took time out from their busy day undermining civil liberties at home and abroad to defend the flag there was another story in the news that, oddly, did not attract their interest.
Qantas banned a man from flying to London because they didn't like his t-shirt. It said something like, "George Bush. World's #1 Terrorist". Leaving aside the merits of the content lets just focus on the fact that a man was restricted from travelling because a private company didn't agree with his politics.
Qantas argued that the shirt was offensive and therefore possibly a security risk. It is not entirely clear what they thought he was going to do with the shirt that would elevate it to the level of security risk. I'm thinking something along the lines of a fatal wet t-shirt contest but I can't quite figure out how to make it work.
Will any clothing, or indeed anything at all, that could be deemed offensive be banned from flights from now on. If he had been wearing a t-shirt saying, "Bush is #1" would he have been kicked off the flight? I don't know if that is offensive as such but it certainly would be an insult to your intelligence.
Virtually anything could be construed as offensive, so we will come to the logical conclusion that nothing at all will be allowed on flights. Is Qantas phasing in flying in the nude by stealth? Because, if so, I don't think they have thought it all the way through.
I doubt that the hyper-patriotic politicians who raced to condemn the flag ban will similarly defend the rights of this dangerous and frankly remarkably stubborn t-shirt wearer (he refused to take the t-shirt off).
The essence of free speech is summed up in the quote attributed to the archetypal freethinker, Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I wonder if I put that on a t-shirt would I be allowed to get on a plane?
PS The Big Day Out organisers should instead try to sell, or even give Australian flags to everybody that comes through the gate.
Supposedly this is to counter aggressive nationalism that was displayed at the event last year in the wake of the Cronulla riots. I don't agree with the ban, as to do so in effect surrenders the flag as a symbol to the nationalists, and gives them a cause around which to rally.
I am however not organising the Big Day Out and if clubs can enforce dress codes then I don't see why the BDO people can't as well. Not being the most fashionable of people I have fallen victim to dress codes in the past and don't like them, but their merits are an argument for another time.
Today my point follows from the growing chorus of condemnation that news of the ban has elicited from the Prime Minister down to various flunkies who managed to elbow there way into shot.
Flunkies such as Andrew Robb, the federal parliamentary secretary for immigration, who has called for the event to be cancelled if the ban remains in place. Further proof that there is no old testament god as Robb was not immediately struck down by lightning for his gross hypocrisy.
Clive Hamilton and Sarah Maddison are about to release a new book outlining the extent of this hypocrisy called Silencing Dissent. It outlines how the Howard government has systematically gone about silencing its critics, and generally undermining democracy in this country.
The very same day that all these great and powerful took time out from their busy day undermining civil liberties at home and abroad to defend the flag there was another story in the news that, oddly, did not attract their interest.
Qantas banned a man from flying to London because they didn't like his t-shirt. It said something like, "George Bush. World's #1 Terrorist". Leaving aside the merits of the content lets just focus on the fact that a man was restricted from travelling because a private company didn't agree with his politics.
Qantas argued that the shirt was offensive and therefore possibly a security risk. It is not entirely clear what they thought he was going to do with the shirt that would elevate it to the level of security risk. I'm thinking something along the lines of a fatal wet t-shirt contest but I can't quite figure out how to make it work.
Will any clothing, or indeed anything at all, that could be deemed offensive be banned from flights from now on. If he had been wearing a t-shirt saying, "Bush is #1" would he have been kicked off the flight? I don't know if that is offensive as such but it certainly would be an insult to your intelligence.
Virtually anything could be construed as offensive, so we will come to the logical conclusion that nothing at all will be allowed on flights. Is Qantas phasing in flying in the nude by stealth? Because, if so, I don't think they have thought it all the way through.
I doubt that the hyper-patriotic politicians who raced to condemn the flag ban will similarly defend the rights of this dangerous and frankly remarkably stubborn t-shirt wearer (he refused to take the t-shirt off).
The essence of free speech is summed up in the quote attributed to the archetypal freethinker, Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I wonder if I put that on a t-shirt would I be allowed to get on a plane?
PS The Big Day Out organisers should instead try to sell, or even give Australian flags to everybody that comes through the gate.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Almost Australia Day
Today (Thursday 18th January) marks the day that if all had gone to plan would have been Australia Day. It was on this date that the First Fleet arrived at Botany Bay, their intended destination.
Joseph Banks had apparently recommended Botany Bay as the site for settlement, but upon arrival Phillip found poor soil, little water, poor anchorage, and apparently trees very hard to cut down.
So eight days later they moved north to Port Jackson and settled and named Sydney Cove (sycophantically after the British Home Secretary Lord Sydney).
Botany Bay was first however, so today could have been Australia Day except for the association with failure. Still given the whole invasion thing, and the fact that the whole exercise was a way to get rid of convicts, how high are we really setting the bar here.
Just out of interest Cook sighted Australia on April 20th 1770, and made first landfall on April 29th.
Joseph Banks had apparently recommended Botany Bay as the site for settlement, but upon arrival Phillip found poor soil, little water, poor anchorage, and apparently trees very hard to cut down.
So eight days later they moved north to Port Jackson and settled and named Sydney Cove (sycophantically after the British Home Secretary Lord Sydney).
Botany Bay was first however, so today could have been Australia Day except for the association with failure. Still given the whole invasion thing, and the fact that the whole exercise was a way to get rid of convicts, how high are we really setting the bar here.
Just out of interest Cook sighted Australia on April 20th 1770, and made first landfall on April 29th.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
The rule of law
Recently there was a federal court decision that said essentially that governments have to follow the law, in this case the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Preservation Act, to protect endangered species from loggers.
Everyone is supposedly obliged to follow the law, even governments and large contributors to those governments, because if the law is only applied arbitrarily it is essentially meaningless.
However, the response from the government has been if they or the loggers are breaking the law, then clearly it is the law that is in the wrong, it is the law that is broken and needs fixing. So they will simply change the law so that it has no effect.
What is the point of having a law that has no effect? Well obviously they are keeping the name of the act presumably based on the Orwellian theory of law very popular with this government (eg Workchoices).
It seems it is the government's intention to have an Environment Protection and Biodiversity Preservation Act that ensures there is no way to protect the environment or preserve biodiversity.
Does the rule of law mean anything if those who break the law can rely on the government to simply change it to reflect the wishes of the lawbreaker? Can this really be said to be an equality before the law?
Everyone is supposedly obliged to follow the law, even governments and large contributors to those governments, because if the law is only applied arbitrarily it is essentially meaningless.
However, the response from the government has been if they or the loggers are breaking the law, then clearly it is the law that is in the wrong, it is the law that is broken and needs fixing. So they will simply change the law so that it has no effect.
What is the point of having a law that has no effect? Well obviously they are keeping the name of the act presumably based on the Orwellian theory of law very popular with this government (eg Workchoices).
It seems it is the government's intention to have an Environment Protection and Biodiversity Preservation Act that ensures there is no way to protect the environment or preserve biodiversity.
Does the rule of law mean anything if those who break the law can rely on the government to simply change it to reflect the wishes of the lawbreaker? Can this really be said to be an equality before the law?
Monday, January 8, 2007
Climate change
Now that the Australian political reality on climate change is starting to catch up with actual reality, the Howard government has been going out of its way to be seen to be doing something.
They can hardly not now that most people are finally convinced that there is something seriously wrong, in large part thanks to the Stern report that said it will cost a lot of money, and the fact that people are concerned they will soon have to wash with a mildly damp cloth passed around the entire family.
Howard has of course had to be dragged kicking and screaming every step of the way and is still trying to argue that it isn't that big of a problem, but even if it is a problem it will be solved by "clean coal" and nuclear power.
Clean coal, a term undoubtedly dreamed up by some public relations hack, is the argument that climate change can be forestalled if we somehow buried all the pollution from coal underground. It is the somehow that is the hurdle here because at the moment there is no way to do it and won't be for at the very least another decade.
Now the technology for nuclear power obviously already exists though we don't really have the expertise for it in Australia at present. However nuclear power has come a long way over the last few decades and is indeed relatively safe compared to the days of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.
However it isn't a solution to climate change no matter how you spin it, not even a significant part of a solution. It will take probably fifteen years to build a nuclear power station, let alone dozens of them simultaneously, a production process that will itself significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions.
Assuming all these nuclear power stations could be built they would still only account for a minority of our power generation needs and would do nothing to address greenhouse gas emissions from sources other than power generation.
The new nuclear power stations are reportedly safe from meltdowns but you have to think the danger from terrorist attack is still real. Even if direct attack is less of a threat they produce radioactive waste which isn't exactly the safest stuff to leave lying around.
And of course nuclear power stations are inherently centralised, compared with sustainable alternatives, and therefore more vulnerable to attack, or simple failure as vital infrastructure. A distributed generation capacity makes a lot more sense in terms of risk and also in terms of the ability to be brought online, one module at a time.
Nuclear simply won't get the job done. Even accepting all the government's arguments it would be a stop gap measure for a part of the problem. Uranium afterall is not a renewable resource and demand is likely to increase fast. Good for uranium companies but bad for people who have just made themselves dependent on uranium. It will run out.
All the while during the nuclear diversion the government has virtually eliminated funding for research and implementation of viable alternatives. We are afterall a sunburnt country... it shouldn't be this hard to get the government to face reality.
They are so desperate to prop up the current industries rapidly becoming obsolete but still cashed up and subsidised that they are sabotaging the future ones. We should be ahead of the curve but we are falling ever further behind and the government seems determined to go full steam ahead in the wrong direction.
They can hardly not now that most people are finally convinced that there is something seriously wrong, in large part thanks to the Stern report that said it will cost a lot of money, and the fact that people are concerned they will soon have to wash with a mildly damp cloth passed around the entire family.
Howard has of course had to be dragged kicking and screaming every step of the way and is still trying to argue that it isn't that big of a problem, but even if it is a problem it will be solved by "clean coal" and nuclear power.
Clean coal, a term undoubtedly dreamed up by some public relations hack, is the argument that climate change can be forestalled if we somehow buried all the pollution from coal underground. It is the somehow that is the hurdle here because at the moment there is no way to do it and won't be for at the very least another decade.
Now the technology for nuclear power obviously already exists though we don't really have the expertise for it in Australia at present. However nuclear power has come a long way over the last few decades and is indeed relatively safe compared to the days of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.
However it isn't a solution to climate change no matter how you spin it, not even a significant part of a solution. It will take probably fifteen years to build a nuclear power station, let alone dozens of them simultaneously, a production process that will itself significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions.
Assuming all these nuclear power stations could be built they would still only account for a minority of our power generation needs and would do nothing to address greenhouse gas emissions from sources other than power generation.
The new nuclear power stations are reportedly safe from meltdowns but you have to think the danger from terrorist attack is still real. Even if direct attack is less of a threat they produce radioactive waste which isn't exactly the safest stuff to leave lying around.
And of course nuclear power stations are inherently centralised, compared with sustainable alternatives, and therefore more vulnerable to attack, or simple failure as vital infrastructure. A distributed generation capacity makes a lot more sense in terms of risk and also in terms of the ability to be brought online, one module at a time.
Nuclear simply won't get the job done. Even accepting all the government's arguments it would be a stop gap measure for a part of the problem. Uranium afterall is not a renewable resource and demand is likely to increase fast. Good for uranium companies but bad for people who have just made themselves dependent on uranium. It will run out.
All the while during the nuclear diversion the government has virtually eliminated funding for research and implementation of viable alternatives. We are afterall a sunburnt country... it shouldn't be this hard to get the government to face reality.
They are so desperate to prop up the current industries rapidly becoming obsolete but still cashed up and subsidised that they are sabotaging the future ones. We should be ahead of the curve but we are falling ever further behind and the government seems determined to go full steam ahead in the wrong direction.
Sunday, January 7, 2007
Radical English
For some reason the English Revolution seems to be largely overlooked in the teaching of history.
Arguably however the English Revolution had as much, if not more, impact on history, at least for Commonwealth countries, than the French Revolution.
Certainly the English Revolution deserves not to be completely overlooked, or simply reduced to Charles I, Cromwell, and, Charles II.
Revolutions by their very nature tend to be characterised by freethinking because of the overturning of the status quo.
Of course my interest is drawn to the real radicals like the Levellers, and, Gerrard Winstanley and the Diggers, who have been almost completely airbrushed out of history.
For more information on these fascinating and generally overlooked revolutionaries I can thoroughly recommend The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas During the English Revolution, by Christopher Hill.
An important reminder that English history is not just infighting, inbred aristocrats. And that not all history is written by the winners, just textbooks, as Christopher Hill was a communist.
He was of course also a very respected historian and his bias, while obvious in the book, is significantly dealt with by his choice of subject matter, in that he has sought out radicals to research.
Regardless you have to look past the Marxist perspective because there isn't really any competition in the Digger research niche.
Arguably however the English Revolution had as much, if not more, impact on history, at least for Commonwealth countries, than the French Revolution.
Certainly the English Revolution deserves not to be completely overlooked, or simply reduced to Charles I, Cromwell, and, Charles II.
Revolutions by their very nature tend to be characterised by freethinking because of the overturning of the status quo.
Of course my interest is drawn to the real radicals like the Levellers, and, Gerrard Winstanley and the Diggers, who have been almost completely airbrushed out of history.
For more information on these fascinating and generally overlooked revolutionaries I can thoroughly recommend The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas During the English Revolution, by Christopher Hill.
An important reminder that English history is not just infighting, inbred aristocrats. And that not all history is written by the winners, just textbooks, as Christopher Hill was a communist.
He was of course also a very respected historian and his bias, while obvious in the book, is significantly dealt with by his choice of subject matter, in that he has sought out radicals to research.
Regardless you have to look past the Marxist perspective because there isn't really any competition in the Digger research niche.
Green Freethinker?
The most obvious link between being Green and freethought is the most prominent freethinker of the nineteenth century.
His reputation is now enjoying a long overdue resurgence thanks in large part to Susan Jacob's Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism (a great book that I highly recommend).
Politically he was very progressive even by today's standards at a time when that was apparently possible within the GOP Republicans. His name of course was Robert GREEN Ingersoll.
Other possibilities for Green freethinkers were:
Thomas Hill Green - philosopher, political radical, and temperance campaigner
Ruth Hurmence Green - author of The Born Again Skeptic's Guide to the Bible
His reputation is now enjoying a long overdue resurgence thanks in large part to Susan Jacob's Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism (a great book that I highly recommend).
Politically he was very progressive even by today's standards at a time when that was apparently possible within the GOP Republicans. His name of course was Robert GREEN Ingersoll.
Other possibilities for Green freethinkers were:
Thomas Hill Green - philosopher, political radical, and temperance campaigner
Ruth Hurmence Green - author of The Born Again Skeptic's Guide to the Bible
Buddhist Freethought
I do not recall where I found the following quote, but I quite like it, though the source is at first surprising.
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumoured by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."
Buddha
This quote could very easily be taken as a definition of freethinking. In my opinion of all the major religions Buddhism is the most rational, though that isn't really saying a great deal granted. Though it is difficult to argue that the various strands of buddhism have hewed to the above precept as closely as they might have over the millenia. Of course at the time of speaking the Buddha was trying to split people off from Hinduism so getting them to question authority was a bit of a prerequisite.
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumoured by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."
Buddha
This quote could very easily be taken as a definition of freethinking. In my opinion of all the major religions Buddhism is the most rational, though that isn't really saying a great deal granted. Though it is difficult to argue that the various strands of buddhism have hewed to the above precept as closely as they might have over the millenia. Of course at the time of speaking the Buddha was trying to split people off from Hinduism so getting them to question authority was a bit of a prerequisite.
Bible Quiz
Try this bible quiz that highlights some of the wierd and just plain wrong things in the so-called good book.
Brisbane Freethought Association
There is mention of a Brisbane Freethought Association in Civilising the City: Literary Societies and Clubs in Brisbane during the 1880s and 1890s, a thesis by Leanne Day. Presumably this is the same or at least related to the Freethought Society mentioned by John Kellett in his section of Radical Brisbane.
Day outlines how the freethinkers were excluded from the debating federation which was dominated by christians. The Freethought Association was also denied the use of the mail by the Postmaster General because they would be distributing blasphemy (probably accurate) and sedition (probably less accurate).
Day also surmises that the Association was exclusively for men, which if true (the evidence is strong but there is some room for doubt) is something of a disappointment. Afterall, Ingersoll was a strong advocate of women's rights. Another disappointment is that Day doesn't mention what happened to the BFA. Presumably the end of a voluntary group is never as well documented as the beginning.
Day outlines how the freethinkers were excluded from the debating federation which was dominated by christians. The Freethought Association was also denied the use of the mail by the Postmaster General because they would be distributing blasphemy (probably accurate) and sedition (probably less accurate).
Day also surmises that the Association was exclusively for men, which if true (the evidence is strong but there is some room for doubt) is something of a disappointment. Afterall, Ingersoll was a strong advocate of women's rights. Another disappointment is that Day doesn't mention what happened to the BFA. Presumably the end of a voluntary group is never as well documented as the beginning.
Brisbane Freethought
I first read the term `freethought' in the book Radical Brisbane: an unruly history an excellent book proving both Brisbane and history are in fact quite interesting. Chapter 8 is titled Maritime Hall and is predominantly about radical union politics, specifically the Brisbane Trades and Labour Council and its successors.
However for our purposes the interesting fact was that at the time of its founding the Brisbane Trades and Labour Council met at Freethought Hall, sadly later renamed Maritime Hall (hence the title of the chapter). There is only one paragraph briefly outlining freethought and the Freethought Society in Brisbane, but I was captivated.
Freethought Hall, on the corner and between Eagle and Queen Streets, was the Brisbane headquarters of the Freethought Society. The society apparently founded in 1870 had at one time, aside from a building, an "extensive library" the fate of which I would very much like to learn, and published journals called Freedom, and, The Pilgrim, similarly seemingly lost to history.
What became of the Freethought Society is not clear, but it is a pity that it didn't continue on into the present day.
However for our purposes the interesting fact was that at the time of its founding the Brisbane Trades and Labour Council met at Freethought Hall, sadly later renamed Maritime Hall (hence the title of the chapter). There is only one paragraph briefly outlining freethought and the Freethought Society in Brisbane, but I was captivated.
Freethought Hall, on the corner and between Eagle and Queen Streets, was the Brisbane headquarters of the Freethought Society. The society apparently founded in 1870 had at one time, aside from a building, an "extensive library" the fate of which I would very much like to learn, and published journals called Freedom, and, The Pilgrim, similarly seemingly lost to history.
What became of the Freethought Society is not clear, but it is a pity that it didn't continue on into the present day.
Pansy
The Wikipedia article on freethought mentions that the pansy was traditionally the symbol of freethought. The article explains that,
"The pansy derives its name from the French word pensée, which means "thought"; it was so named because the flower resembles a human face, and in the month of August it nods forward as if deep in thought."
The association of pansies with thought is also a part of the language of flowers nowadays largely reduced to red roses being associated with romance.
The word pansy also of course has meanings that are construed as negative by some, when it is (was) used as an insult to mean an effeminate male, implying gay. According to the Online Etymology Dictionary this connotation goes back to 1929, though it doesn't go into detail as to the context.
It is interesting that the symbol for freethought was so very soon after the so-called Golden Age of Freethought, co-opted as an insult meaning something else entirely. How the word evolved into this insult would likely be quite interesting.
Presumably those opposed to freethought used it as an insult at first merely to denote freethinkers and it became conflated with other groups they opposed due to the tendency to conflate opponents, like calling everyone a terrorist these days.
For reasons not particularly clear, gays evoke a visceral reaction for some people particularly opposed to freethought, beyond the mere contempt and hostility to thinking. So likely it was the connotation of the former that gave the insult its emotional resonance.
The connotation of insults would I suspect evolve to select for the emotional resonance. At the same time the environment was changing, as the freethought movement was ebbing, and therefore the need to insult it decreasing. This meaning would therefore be selected against.
Over time the meaning of the insult would lose its original association with freethought leaving only the vestige of thinking linked to effeminate, and with the standard misogyny of this crowd, therefore wrong. It's a theory anyway.
I am not sure if ownership of either the word pansy or the symbol of the flower is achievable or even desirable for freethought. I personally don't have much use for flowers but the symbology of this one is quite appropriate.
Just as a point of interest pansies were cultivated from wildflowers called Heartsease. The heartsease shared the association with thinking. It seems an un-usual, but welcome, symbolic pairing of head and heart. The wild part doesn't hurt either.
I also note the Wikipedia pansy page says there is such a thing as a pansy monkey flower. Perhaps this could be the symbol for the struggle of science against creationists.
Monday, January 1, 2007
Freethought
Green (see Australian Greens).
Freethought (see Wikipedia).
There isn't really a specifically Green way to be a freethinker but as these are the two labels that together best sum up my way of looking at the world I jammed them together on the assumption that no one else would have done so previously and it seems to have worked. Actually I am not completely happy with the title but it is difficult to label yourself if you're a freethinker. Anyway, it will do for now.
Freethought (see Wikipedia).
There isn't really a specifically Green way to be a freethinker but as these are the two labels that together best sum up my way of looking at the world I jammed them together on the assumption that no one else would have done so previously and it seems to have worked. Actually I am not completely happy with the title but it is difficult to label yourself if you're a freethinker. Anyway, it will do for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)