Slattsnews

A disturbing reaction has emerged to Deakin University’s Mirko Bagaric’s provocative proposal for government to legitimise torture.
I’m troubled not just because a hefty majority surveyed in a vox pop published by my local paper seems on the surface to disprove my earlier contention that mainstreamers would support torture if its application saved the lives of innocents. However, that proposition wasn’t put to those surveyed.
Ten people in the street were asked: “Should the Deakin University law professor who is advocating torture keep his job?”
Seven emphatically said he should be sacked, one was whole-heartedly behind him and of the two oldest (going by published photographs) surveyed, one supported his right to express an opinion and the other was undecided.
All but one of those supporting his sacking appeared to be under 40 and their approach was indicative of a far more disturbing trend in society than that of an academic throwing up a controversial subject for discussion.
A clear majority not just disagreed with Bargaric’s proposition but were quite content for him to be punished for expressing it.
In the story below the vox pop, a local multi-culti leader compared Bargaric’s comments with those made by Adolf Hitler in the early days of his dictatorship.
He’s correct in the sense that Hitler got away with it because he was allowed to by a dumbed-down, self-obsessed population with little appreciation for true liberal tradition.
Our paper’s position was balanced by the words of 50-something colleague of Bargaric, Roy Hay, who wrote that the emotional abuse Bargaric had met was regarded as inadequate by an academic thinker.
Hay’s piece was rather non-commital but he did refer to the “Rawlsian concept of justice where one should only make laws where it is uncertain, in advance, whether we will be in the position of imposing these laws on others or on the receiving end of thse laws. Is this a good example .
“Bargaric uses arguments by analogy to make his case.
“He says we allow hostage takers to be shot to save the lives of hostages if the opportunity permits . . . Why not allow torture to save lives of hostages where the person held by authorities has knowledge which can lead to the discovery and rescue of the hostages?”
“Why is the lesser offence against the person, torture, not permitted, whereas the greater offence, killing, is seen as allowable?”
It is one of many points worth considering on this touchy subject. Those who would deny Bargaric the right to raise them demonstrate clearly that the slur ”reactionary” no longer belongs solely to the so-called progressive Left.