“Tyranny usurps the place of equality, which is the soul of liberty, and destroys the public courage.” – Thomas Gordon.

How is it that we’ve permitted such claptrap as this apparent ‘right not to be offended’ to become a virtue in our lucky country? Don’t tell me that this is one of the progressive ideas that make our country so lucky? Surely not.

The right not to be offended by what, honesty, sincerity, truth? How is it that such a beautiful country, once so full of character, individuality, humanity, egality, such a multicultural combination of peaceful experiences as we were such a very short time ago – two minute decades – has fallen into such a trap? For what reason would we corrupt our children’s futures by such an abomination as this notion of danger in truth? That we would turn their little worlds, individual as they are, so uspide down? Not upside down as the famous philosophers have urged, but upside down in such a draconian and selish way.

How can it be that those of us over 50 believe that our children are incapable of enjoying a future full of, at the very least, the same freedoms our parents sought for us, fought and worked so hard for us to enjoy? What is this magic wand, this hypnotic glitter, which allows us to oppress our children in a way that we – true Aussies of character – would never have allowed in the past? Do we not remember Eureka, Gallipoli, Whitlam and Hawke? No, … I suppose we do not. Or is it perhaps because some of us still do?

Our King, the man of coal and sinking boats, of priests and prisons – a true defender of the Southern Cross who gives out lapel pins with the flag of other countries upon them would not be where he is now locked up in his secret cabinet, all au paired up and raking in his dosh, without the freedoms he now takes from the future.
These private school boys, whose prosperity was subsidised by preceding generation’s fundamental beliefs in a shared humanity, in civil rights and equality before the law, now believe that 25 million subsidised children may no longer share, or in fact, are even due, those same freedoms?

How did we allow the State – and such an overbearing and unaccountable one at that – to put itself above the people who pay its bills and to decide questions of character and conscience for our own good?

When did we shift from that old fashioned notion of justice, to this rabid concept that unless you sit on the right side of god in a corrupted parliament, that guilt and want is to be your inheritance? How can it be, as His Most Exalted Mendaciousness, Lord of the Home, Pistol Pete Dutton maintains, “That if you want an opinion then you have to get yourself elected”? Too many questions. Too many rotten apples laying on the wasted ground.

“Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it … it is not the feeling sure of a doctrine (be it what may) which I call an assumption of infallibility. It is the undertaking to decide that question for others, without allowing them to hear what can be said on the contrary side.” – John Stuart
Mill.

A symbol of caution, a question mark; preceded by a collection of words it signifies that a question has been asked and as such, denotes ignorance. Its true that it doesnt require, not in itself anyway, that the preceding collection of words should be answered, though, generally, when one does see this little symbol, and one has thrown cautiin into the wind, one jumps to give it an answer. Why? Because an answer gives the little symbol some dignity .. even to a collection of words that appear to be undignified.
These days it’s more often just ignored … though, just as often, its assumed that any collection of words that follow one of these little symbols will satisfy the symbol. Of course, once upon a time – and I was taught this – the collection of words that fill the blank spaces after the symbol were supposed to relate – even if vaguely – to the collection of words that preceded the symbol. This was a long time ago.

Like I said, once upon a time .. a long long time ago. Its not surprising that this little symbol has lost its meaning now. After all, and especially here in the most lucky of countries, we’re content to blindly follow the lead of our noble and dignified leaders – our little princes and princesses on the road to being future kings and queens.

Today, none of this really matters. Now we see all these words as just a noisy collection that the intelligent can ignore, and the ignorant among us, can bludgeon with more noise, or silence, as they see fit. Its no longer deemed necessary to equate the words preceding the little symbol with the noise or the deafening silence that the little symbol once thrived upon. In fact, the more unrelated noise or deafening silence one can use when coming across this little symbol, the more its taken to be the apogee of an enlightened discourse.

When I was young, I was often caned for not being able to relate the preceding collection of words with the symbol, and the collection of words that I tried to sell on as an answer. How times have changed. Now the greater distance one can put between the preceding words, the symbol, and the noise – or perhaps the silence – the more one dignifies the symbol. And, … the more cash one can apparently make. It is odd isn’t it, that we’re redefining all these age old notions so that they fall into line with contemporary education so that they are fit for our little kings and queens.

I tried very hard not to put one of these little symbols in here, not because I’m smart, but because I lack the dignity and the education fit for a king.

“New presbyter is but old priest writ large” – John Milton.