Today Honi Soit has accomplished the previously thought impossible feat of destroying the modicum of journalistic integrity they had. We sincerely apologise for previously suggesting that they had hit rock bottom, we were so so wrong.
We at the Conservative Club believe strongly in the freedom of speech and expression, regardless of how morally repugnant your position is. But don’t just listen to us, listen to Noam Chomsky: ‘If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.’ In a Liberal Democracy such as ours, you cannot justify the use of violence when a multitude of other mechanisms exist to punish those who incite ideological violence.
In an article published today titled ‘Face off: Should we punch Nazis?’ we were treated to an intellectual masterclass that would make Socrates weep with envy, or realistically just weep.The authors, Kishor Napier-Raman vs Noa Zulman, competed to see who could best justify political violence against those who they disagreed with. Curiously the strong condemnation of nazism for killing millions, which of course is an abhorrent ideology, didn’t follow with a similar condemnation of socialism which has and continues to take exponentially greater life.
Kishor Napier-Raman argued for the Pro-Punch side and opened by stating, “By punching fascists, we tell society that these ideas are so repugnant that they ought be crushed rather than ‘debated’.” How foolish of us to forget that ‘punching’ is actually a tool of clear communication and not actually one of crude violence. It only occurred to us after reading this that Immanuel Kant did forgo the pen for the first, after realising it would be a far more efficient use of his time to instead travel around punching people who he disagreed with. How foolish of us to forget arguably one of the greatest philosophical contributions of the 20th century, that time when Bertrand Russell beautifully and clearly articulated his thoughts on religion by punching someone. It is a far more effective approach to condemn an ideology by exposing its inherent hatred by means of argument and communcation; rather than attempt to suppress its followers by force which only will strengthen their resolve.
You might be so foolish as to have doubts about the intellectual value of ‘punching’ but purge this thought-crime from your mind and read this elegant riposte, ‘It is therefore deeply unfair to expect members of those groups to respond to people who want us dead with cold, rational and respectful discourse.’ The next time Jewish members of the Conservative Club or Jewish students at Sydney University are threatened with extreme violence by both neo-nazis and socialists, should their immediate reaction by one of violence? Of course not.
As stated we live in a Liberal Democracy where so many other avenues exist to punish the perpetrator and help prevent this from happening before violence can be legitimately justified. The author notes that Nazis want them dead so punching them is therefore actually an act of self-defence, which is a fair point. Let’s take a look at some notable examples of self-defence at Sydney University:
Such as that time our fearless protectors from the Left launched a violent attack on the world’s most dangerous South Australian, Minister Christopher Pyne:
Don’t forget the time these noble Leftist warriors attacked former Prime Minister John Howard en masse when he returned to Sydney University to receive an honorary doctorate:
And don’t forget the time that our guardian angels protected us from Senator Simon Birmingham who had turned up to Sydney University with a license to kill and not to adjudicate a debate:
Noa Zulman then enters the arena and instead of launching any defence of free speech or even providing the slightest condemnation of those who employ violence, she suggests that, “I’d go as far as to suggest that punching Nazis might seem like the right thing to do in the short term, but hurts progress in the long term”. Just to clarify, she opposes the use of violence not on a moral basis but simply that it will inhibit progress for the Left.
She does raise the useful suggestion that punishing those who engage in violent and politically extreme behaviour without punching might be a more effective way to deal with them. Of course though this must only be applied to right-wing extremists, because how else do you expect Grassroots to fill up one of their lately lodged SRC tickets? But read again her quote above and you’ll notice how she begins to wax lyrically about the morality of punching a Nazi. She concludes her magnum opus by writing, “Punching a Nazi is good; hanging one by the gallows is better.” No doubt striking fear into skinheads across the globe, who foolishly had expected to engage strictly intellectually with their opponents.
Take a panadol, have a nap, and apologise to your brain for subjecting it to reading that article.