Oz Politics Blog

This is not the first time I have had to deal with the matter of my approach to comments, and it probably wont be the last.

My comments policy is simple: play the ball and not the (wo)man.

I try not to delete comments — really I don’t. I do not to want to be the chief censor. I am not a great believer in the nanny state, and I don’t want to run blog that is bound up in the lexical contortions of political correctness.

That does not mean I am comfortable with a free for all slug feast, where anything goes. I will delete those comments I judge to be offensive, sexist, racist, slanderous, defamatory, lewd or otherwise inappropriate. I am much more inclined to delete comments that do not argue a particular policy perspective, but simply resort to name calling or personal abuse.

The decision to delete or sanitise a comment is always a difficult one. I try not to be too pure, as it would (a) take up too much of my time and (b) interrupt the flow of comments. I am inclined to leave common political nicknames that might be marginally offensive — for example rodent or Krudd — provided the rest of the post argues a substantive point. But if the post is little more than personal abuse, I may well consign it to the bit bucket. While I cope with friendly (if not a little barbed) nicknames for fellow readers, name calling, insults and general nastiness are not acceptable. If someone tells me they find something offensive I tend to take it seriously (provided it does not look like a tit-for-tat response to a my decision to delete an earlier comment).

Some will argue that I am capricious and inconsistent in my approach. All I can say is: guilty as charged. So there can be no mistake, I reserve the right to apply my comments policy in a completely capricious and inconsistent manner. I reserve the right to edit or delete comments from anyone. I reserve the right to turn off comments for any particular post, or to prevent individual readers (or everyone) from making comments.

If you don’t like my comments policy, don’t post any comments.

Some have accused me of favouring those from the left when I delete comments, and others have accused me of favouring those from the right. In this blog I strive to remain objective, balanced and very much middle of the road. If it is true that my deletions exhibit a political bias, please accept my assurances that it is not something I consciously set out to do. Also, consider the possibility that those whom I am supposed to be oppressing with my deletions may actually be responsible for the imbalance in deletions.

Of course, I would not need to reiterate these matters if everyone sought to respect others and exercised personal responsibility in the comments they post.

Well that is the end of the sermon.

May the deity or philosophy of your personal preference guide you always.

I have upgraded my blog to Wordpress 2.1. With one exception, the process was fairly painless. The exception was my politics test plugin. The new version of Wordpress was inserting line breaks into the questions. I had to get my fingers dirty and find out what was happening. It turned out that the auto-formatting function [wpautop() in the file ~/wp-includes/formatting.php] had been rewritten so that input XHTML tags were now treated as blocks. The fix was easy: I deleted the input keyword from the list of blocks. I am buggered if I know why they did it.

As far as I can tell, all of my other plugins are now working fine (after the odd random fix). Please let me know if you find any problems with the upgraded site.

On a different matter, when I went on holidays, I introduced a registration requirement before you can post a comment. The registration requirement significantly reduced the daily spam I receive. Consequently, I have decided to keep the requirement.

Please, cut the sledging. Play the ball, not the person.

If it happenbs again, I will make comments by registration only, and start issuing yellow cards.

This is a site about politics. Almost by definition, politics is about the contest of ideas and egos. Politics can be gladiatorial. It is often brutal. I love it when people express views with which I disagree. I enjoy reading the arguments between people.

But I am no fan of personal abuse. I do not want this site to become a bear pit for sledge fests. I am more interested in the contest of ideas than the contest of egos. If your best argument is to call someone a Nazi, a left wing loony or a f*ckwit, you have already lost. Twice in the last week I have disabled comments on a post because the comments thread had descended into personal abuse.

My comments policy is simple: play the ball and not the (wo)man. If we cannot manage this on a voluntary basis I may need to gird my loins in leather, get a whip, restrict comments to registered users and apply a policy of three-strikes and you are out.

Good news. “Nude images of Michelle Leslie” is no longer the leading search term that brings people here. Now it is the 12 cartoons of Muhammad (also known as Muhamad and Mohammed) originally published in a Danish newspaper, Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten, on 30 September last year.

Since I have not blogged on this topic, I suspect the same mechanism was at work. Random words on my blog or news feed pages are picked up by google. After a few search hits, the phrase gets on to my site stats page, which is subsequently picked up by google as well. This is one of the problems of dynamic computer generated content.

Unlike nude images of Leslie, this issue touches on a number of grand political themes: censorship, freedom of speech, freedom of religious expression, civility, multiculturalism, tolerance, not to mention international relations. It also raises questions about accuracy in reporting. According to the international media, SBS reported that one of the twelve cartoons shows a pig-snouted Mohammed. However, that cartoon was one of three added to the series on some Internet sites by unknown people, to make the series more provocative. It was not in the original series.

Wikipedia has an excellent overview of the controversy.

I found myself in complete agreement with this statement by EU Commissioner Franco Frattini.

“As European Commissioner responsible for integration policy as well as the promotion and respect of fundamental rights, integrating communities with different religions, cultures and political affiliations is an objective that I strive for in my everyday activities. This is an objective that flows from the liberal principles that govern the European Union and its institutions, and indeed the life and history of our continent. I can understand the feelings of indignation, frustration and sadness of the Muslim communities over the last few days as they viewed the cartoons published by a Danish newspaper. Such events do not facilitate dialogue between faiths and cultures and provide barriers to the integration process to which the Member States of the Union are committed.

“However, one of the founding principles of our Europe is freedom of expression, including the right to criticize.

“A difference of opinion, even if it is bitter and disrespectful, often feeds into free polemic debate, in which satire plays a full part. We often discuss matters, sometimes passionately or even rudely, not only in our Parliaments or in the press, but in all manner of public arenas. This is the rule now, replacing armed and violent conflict, using words and ideas to create a society bound by the rule of law.

“It is my duty to enter this debate to remind us all that there are delicate issues, particularly in relation to religion and those ideals that are sacred to us. Consequently, I personally regard the publication of the cartoons as somewhat imprudent, even if the satire used was aimed at a distorted interpretation of religion, such as that used by terrorists to recruit young people to their cause and turning them into fanatics, sometimes to the point of sending them into action as suicide bombers.

“However, I am not offering these common-sense remarks with even the remotest intention of justifying the reactions that are currently being expressed against Denmark and others, including the European Union. Quite the contrary, it should be crystal clear to all that violence, intimidation and the calls for boycotts or for restraints on the freedom of the press are completely unacceptable and will not bring about a constructive discussion between communities. Indeed, no dialogue is possible with those who would threaten fundamental human rights, nor with those who would resort to terror. The fact is that deprivation of freedom has always generated suffering and sorrow, so we must defend freedom even when that means letting those we disagree with have their say. Preserving freedom is the foundation for dialogue.”

Links: The Purple Rodeo, MGK, Club Troppo, Alert and alarmed, Irf, Week by Week, Dog Fight, Mr Lefty, Guy, Tim Blair, Catallaxy,

Comments policy: I have sought advice (from someone whose ethical integrity I respect) about the uninformed and sometimes racist comments this post has attracted. My ethicist advised me to delete the stereotyped, uniformed and polemical. Free speech comes with the responsibility of wise use. I have followed his advice. If people are going to sledge others, they can find another venue. I am happy to keep comments that are well argued. But the mindless anti-Dane, anti-Westerner and anti-Islam comments have been and will be deleted. No correspondence will be entered into in respect of my deletions.

Update 13 February 2006: comments have been suspended.