The government has cancelled the visa of a Jewish influencer who has previously called for the ban of Islam and was booked to speak at several events in Australia.
The right-leaning Australian Jewish Association (AJA) said Sammy Yahood’s visa was cancelled three hours before his flight was due to depart.
The home affairs minister, Tony Burke, confirmed he had cancelled the visa on Monday evening, and said “spreading hatred is not a good reason to come”.
“If someone wants to come to Australia they should apply for the right visa and come for the right reason,” Burke told Guardian Australia in a statement.
In response to the decision, Yahood took to social media overnight to accuse Labor of “tyranny”, insisting his spirits remained high despite the block.
This asshole shouldn’t be allowed to enter the country I agree but prohibiting speech you disagree with everywhere on the planet is tyranical
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Paradoxically, the paradox of tolerance is often used as an argument for intolerance.
You just have to brand someone you don’t like as “intolerant” and then the paradox of tolerance gives you an ethical fig leaf for refusing to tolerate them.
An exorbitantly shitty take.
You’re intolerant of my views!
The paradox of intolerance therefore demands that we refuse to allow you amongst us, lest your intolerance spreads like cancer.
The only paradox at play here is you trying to use logic to destroy the application of logic.
(You’re failing, btw)
The so-called paradox dissolves away once you recognize tolerance as a social contract between parties, instead of some immutable principle.
They break the contract, so they’re no longer covered by it. Treat others as you would like to be treated. It’s not that complicated.
This is the same picture.
If you arbitrarily decide who has “broken the contract” then you arbitrarily decide who you will not tolerate.
Being tolerant does not merely mean allowing the presence of those who do not bother you.
Its not that complicated.
Either you commit to a society that respects people as people regardless of their ethnicity, religion or sexual or gender identity (so long as they don’t limit the freedoms of others), or you don’t. I wouldn’t call that an arbitrary line. If your views cross that line, I will not tolerate them.
The local neonazis held a “book club” at a public library here once (a publicity stunt because they knew it would make a lot of people angry). One liberal writer decided to go there to participate and to talk to them. She announced this beforehand and an article was published in the biggest newspaper in the country. It must’ve come as quite a surprise to her and all the idiots cheering her on for her tolerance, when she changed no minds and only contributed to the publicity stunt while also lending some of her credibility to them. Tolerating their views only gives them more legitimacy as a part of the political discourse.
When I see neonazis marching on the street here, I go shout obscenities at them to make sure they as a group feel unwelcome. The last time that one of them came up to me asking if I had a problem, I tried to talk some sense into him and I think I succeeded at least to an extent. Because a one on one conversation detached from the wider context is the only possible avenue to do so, when the us vs. them tribalism is at least somewhat removed and people can actually see each other instead of just a member of the opposing tribe. No cameras or ulterior motives, no incentive to keep up appearances as the best little loyal member in our team. That’s how I think we should treat intolerance.
Not really.
You’re absolutely correct that any limitations to free speech needs to be considered very carefully. Of course, an arbitrary ban on ideas you disagree with is something to be avoided.
However, that doesn’t mean that there should not be any limitations to the things people are free to say and the ideas they’re free to promote.