Read Online The Inspector-General of Misconception by Frank Moorhouse - Free Book Online
Authors: Frank Moorhouse
Ads: Link
or the decency to pee straight and not to drip. Even in the best restaurants.
Ruling: All people should sit to pee.
GOOD AND BAD FORM IN CONTROVERSY
We are not particularly happy with the conduct of controversy in this land.
The Inspector-General feels that some misunderstanding exists about how to conduct a âcontroversyâ and where it should happen.
There are two qualities which characterise us as Australians but again do not distinguish us. Other cultures share these qualities â but not many.
These qualities are civility and urbanity.
Civility we define as basic public courtesy and peaceable public behaviour. Obviously, we frequently fall from grace in our aspirations towards civility but at least, as a culture, we do aspire and often achieve a high degree of civility. Up to about six drinks.
Urbanity is perhaps a more stylish and polished public behaviour â advanced civility if you like. You will have to do a one-month program with the Inspectorateto qualify for urbanity. The cost of martini-drinking is included in the fee.
One of the tenets of civility is the willingness to be publicly courteous with those with whom we disagree or dislike when inescapably we find ourselves in their company.
Another is the capacity for negotiating without violence with those we oppose or of whom we strongly disapprove.
The third tenet of civility requires that we exercise discernment about when and how we choose to disagree with our opponents.
Hence, when we have recognised a public figure we dislike in the supermarket, it does not follow that we should ram their trolley. Civility requires the containment of disagreement to appropriate places.
Intellectual disagreement and disapproval is only humanly bearable when it is confined to the diverse forums we have created for civilised disagreement.
The media, the letter to the editor, talkback radio, the seminar, the meeting, the festival, the private letter, even the fax, the critique, and the satire are the forums for expressing disapproval and disagreement.
A further tenet is that one does not disagree with all the powers at oneâs disposal.
The forums for confrontation do not include the abusive telephone call late at night, the burning of fiery crosses in peopleâs front gardens. Or painting slogans on the walls of peopleâs homes. Or the harassment of the family of public figures of those we oppose.
People who engage in the public discourse cannot go about the ordinary parts of their life without fear of abuse; talented people will consider public life not to be worth the candle.
What about civility and Hitler?
What about the invitation you receive in 1939 to lunch with Hitler?
Do you refuse as a protest against his policies?
Do you accept and argue calmly and rationally for a change of his policies?
And when he rants, do you thank him and hope that he will have lunch with you when next he visits your part of the world?
Or do you accept the invitation and assassinate him after dessert?
What do you do in 1942 when the lunch invitation arrives?
The Office accepts that there are some people and movements which are unacceptable in a civilised society â that threaten free society in a very tangible way (imprisoning opponents, for example).
Assessing and meeting that threat is part of the judgment of being a liberal democratic citizen.
Sometimes the threat cannot be extinguished without legal suppression or violence.
Democratically elected dictatorships or viciously anti-liberal and inhumane governments may have to be rebelled against.
Some people are to be shunned.
Some people are not worth arguing with.
These are judgments to be made about those who consistently and deliberately offend against civility.
These judgments have to be made on a case-by-case basis.
The guidance in making these judgments comes from a knowledge of history as well as a considered interpretation of the situation confronting us.
Inhibitions of
Ruling: All people should sit to pee.
GOOD AND BAD FORM IN CONTROVERSY
We are not particularly happy with the conduct of controversy in this land.
The Inspector-General feels that some misunderstanding exists about how to conduct a âcontroversyâ and where it should happen.
There are two qualities which characterise us as Australians but again do not distinguish us. Other cultures share these qualities â but not many.
These qualities are civility and urbanity.
Civility we define as basic public courtesy and peaceable public behaviour. Obviously, we frequently fall from grace in our aspirations towards civility but at least, as a culture, we do aspire and often achieve a high degree of civility. Up to about six drinks.
Urbanity is perhaps a more stylish and polished public behaviour â advanced civility if you like. You will have to do a one-month program with the Inspectorateto qualify for urbanity. The cost of martini-drinking is included in the fee.
One of the tenets of civility is the willingness to be publicly courteous with those with whom we disagree or dislike when inescapably we find ourselves in their company.
Another is the capacity for negotiating without violence with those we oppose or of whom we strongly disapprove.
The third tenet of civility requires that we exercise discernment about when and how we choose to disagree with our opponents.
Hence, when we have recognised a public figure we dislike in the supermarket, it does not follow that we should ram their trolley. Civility requires the containment of disagreement to appropriate places.
Intellectual disagreement and disapproval is only humanly bearable when it is confined to the diverse forums we have created for civilised disagreement.
The media, the letter to the editor, talkback radio, the seminar, the meeting, the festival, the private letter, even the fax, the critique, and the satire are the forums for expressing disapproval and disagreement.
A further tenet is that one does not disagree with all the powers at oneâs disposal.
The forums for confrontation do not include the abusive telephone call late at night, the burning of fiery crosses in peopleâs front gardens. Or painting slogans on the walls of peopleâs homes. Or the harassment of the family of public figures of those we oppose.
People who engage in the public discourse cannot go about the ordinary parts of their life without fear of abuse; talented people will consider public life not to be worth the candle.
What about civility and Hitler?
What about the invitation you receive in 1939 to lunch with Hitler?
Do you refuse as a protest against his policies?
Do you accept and argue calmly and rationally for a change of his policies?
And when he rants, do you thank him and hope that he will have lunch with you when next he visits your part of the world?
Or do you accept the invitation and assassinate him after dessert?
What do you do in 1942 when the lunch invitation arrives?
The Office accepts that there are some people and movements which are unacceptable in a civilised society â that threaten free society in a very tangible way (imprisoning opponents, for example).
Assessing and meeting that threat is part of the judgment of being a liberal democratic citizen.
Sometimes the threat cannot be extinguished without legal suppression or violence.
Democratically elected dictatorships or viciously anti-liberal and inhumane governments may have to be rebelled against.
Some people are to be shunned.
Some people are not worth arguing with.
These are judgments to be made about those who consistently and deliberately offend against civility.
These judgments have to be made on a case-by-case basis.
The guidance in making these judgments comes from a knowledge of history as well as a considered interpretation of the situation confronting us.
Inhibitions of
Similar Books
