Mainstream Christian churches around the world have no trouble whatsoever in “disputing” fundamentalist readings of scripture.
Yes, because we are blessed in the West with a prevailingly liberal culture which tolerates dissenting views - such as those expressed by neo-crusaderist-civilizationists. ;)
I trust that clarifies things.
My bad. I should have said feel compelled rather than be compelled.
I recognise the rhetorical trope of singling out a minority as an insidious menace bent on control of society
I think you're over reacting. Personally I find America's (seemingly with the rest of the Western media in tow) systematic demonisation of Iran along with Netanyahu's breast beating to be far more insidious.
So morality and acting in a greater good don’t exist in your world? How sad.
Sure they do. I'm well intended. Aren't you? Question is; which of us is paving the devil's road?
I just don’t understand what you’re saying. That no one should be able to make a press standards complaint to an organisation that invites press standards complaints?
Heh, nice framing Russell. Returning to my initial observation, I was merely disagreeing with you that the Waikato Times should be compelled to remove the article, primarily based on the simple principle of free speech. The press council's regulations are beside the point as far as I'm concerned.
Russell, my argument is based on my opinion and rationale, not regulation.
The only companies subject to its decisions are those who have voluntarily chosen to be subject to them – as the Waikato Times has. I have pointed this out to Scott and Angus.
Yes and you also pointed out that:
….. it is an opinion column and not a news story, meaning it will be judged on a different basis to, say, the infamous ‘Asian Angst’ story in North & South, which the Press Council found breached standards not only of accuracy, but discrimination.
Apart from anything else, I don’t think voluntarily agreeing to uphold a set of standards is practicably compatible with the desperate struggle to even retain market share. Self preservation and self interest will ultimately win out.
Yes, and I have the right to condemn them for that.
Exactly. That is how public discourse should be conducted. Openly.
Seems to me you’re saying that if racists are numerous enough, newspapers are obliged to print racist vilification*
I'm not saying they are obliged to publish those views but I don't think they should be forbidden from doing so. It is a measure of a society as to how it reacts to such opinions.
Cox has no right to appear in a newspaper
Yes but the newspaper has the right to publish Cox's opinion - within reason. Cox's views are representative of a considerable number of people in my experience, so regardless of the inanity of those sentiments, perhaps their purveyors have the right to be heard.
Stick a fork in Paul, folks, he’s done.
Maybe but in spite of his redneckery, he’s not a stupid man. Perhaps he’ll return, suitably chastened and rehabilitated.
I’m inclined to draw a distinction between the context of Paul’s and Cox’s utterances though, in that a state broadcaster has more incumbent responsibility to uphold ethical standards than does a privately owned regional newspaper.