Secular Australia: A 10 Point Plan - forthcoming presentation in Melbourne

When I'm Melbourne after Easter, I'll be on this panel at Embiggen Bookswith two wonderful fellow panelists: Meredith Doig and Graham Oppy. It takes place on Thursday evening, 12 April, at 6.30 pm.

As you can see, the topic is Secular Australia: A 10 Point Plan. It probably won't escape you that the topic responds to Sean Faircloth's proposed ten-point plan for a secular United States of America. Indeed, the blurb (when you click on the link) says:

In the USA, Sean Faircloth, the new Richard Dawkins Foundation Director of Strategy and Policy, has put forward a 10 Point Plan for a secular America. In this vein, our top-shelf panel of thinkers asks: What could/should be Australia’s 10 Point Plan be for a truly secular nation?

I expect that we'll all be asking ourselves whether the Sean Faircloth plans needs tweaking (both in general, and if we were trying to apply it to Australian circumstances). There's going to be some great discussion and debate, so come along if you can.

End the "war on drugs"

I couldn't agree more with the current proposal to end the war on drugs in Australia. We should have learned a long time ago that, even from a utilitarian or harm reduction viewpoint, these kinds of prohibitions of things that people want to do and don't view as wrong will never work. They merely cause further suffering, not to mention police corruption, distorted priorities in the use of public resources, and a general disrespect for the law. That's before we even get to the offensiveness of legislators telling adult citizens (or even mature minors) how to live their lives and what to do with their own bodies.

There is a role for the government in enacting paternalistic legislation mainly aimed at protecting children. Parents may well welcome this kind of support. It might, for example, mean that certain products cannot be advertised during prime viewing time for kids, that some will not be available to teenagers below a certain age (though there's no need for it to be the full age of majority), and so on. Governments can launch their own propaganda education campaigns against activities that they dislike, and these can be effective up to a point in shaping what is seen as cool and/or socially acceptable. But there are limits - beyond a certain point, government action is offensive, oppressive, and counterproductive.

Our current drug laws are way, way beyond that point. It's time to decriminalise, and in fact legalise (but regulate), the main recreational drugs. That is a more liberal policy and a more humane one.

Currently reading - House of Holes by Nicholson Baker

What can I say? This book is hilarious! House of Holes stands to every horrible passage of hard-core pornographic writing that you've ever stumbled across much as Galaxy Quest stands to Star Trek. I.e. it's parodic, satirical, and very, very clever, and yet the satire is more loving than anything else. The sheer inventiveness and energy of Baker's language (not to mention the extremity of the book's weird scenarios) outdoes anything in the pornotopian narratives that it laughs at. Yet, really ... there's a sense that the author is ultimately laughing with the porn scribes as much as mocking them, that he's enjoying the chaotic confusion of raunch that results when he takes it all an increment, or two or three, further.

If there's a flaw, it's that the book goes on it a bit too long. With no real suspense building up, and a notably episodic structure, House of Holes keeps you reading only by a wish to keep enjoying the fun and laughter, not by an urge to turn pages and find out what's going to happen. Though I laughed out loud, I also found my attention wandering as the seemingly endless bangings, bonkings, and buggerings continued.

But never mind. Life is too short not to read Nicholson Baker's brilliant novels, and this one ought to go on top of your list. Give it as a gift, spread the word - your friends are going to love it, and you will as well.

Richard Honess reports on the Reason Rally

Richard Honess, a smart guy from the UK whom I met in California two or three years ago, gives a quite extensive report on what actually happened at the Reason Rally. I wish I could have been there, as it sounds like it was a great experience.

Re: a thread at rd.net about me on Faircloth

There's a thread about this over on Richard Dawkins' site - it's not a terribly long one, but some comments made there led to me making a long comment, which has produced a few additional responses.

One of the issues that received a fair bit of discussion was how practical it is writing philosophical books, and what practical steps should be taken to advance the cause of secular government. In particular, someone asked whether Freedom of Religion and the Secular State contains advice about how secularists should organise.

Answer - it doesn't. It's not that sort of book, and you'll be disappointed if you buy it expecting that. It's a philosophical book, which means that it tries to deal with its subject matter rigorously and honestly. I changed my mind about various things as I was researching and writing it, and if I'd changed my mind about even more things then the book would have reflected that.

I think it's valuable for all sorts of reasons to investigate concepts such as freedom of religion and phenomena such what happens when religion interacts with political power. We should try to get these concepts and phenomena clear, and there didn't seem to be another book that did precisely the job I wanted (the closest may be Martha Nussbaum's Liberty of Conscience and Ahdar and Leigh's Religious Freedom in the Liberal State - both of which contain much that I disagree with). While I always knew that I was going to be advocating and celebrating a form of secularism, I didn't know until quite a late stage exactly how I would be conceiving of it. That's the nature of doing honest philosophy.

So this sort of exercise seems to me to be valuable for reasons that go far beyond advocacy of a particular cause or set of causes. The book might have turned out to be an embarrassment to some people whom I generally regard as allies, though as it turns out that probably hasn't happened (I can't think of much that should embarrass the people I'm thinking of).

As its turned out, Freedom of Religion and the Secular State could probably be endorsed almost entirely by organisations like the CFI. Any disagreements would be on relatively fine points. But there was no guarantee of this. Given the line that I defend, the book will be a valuable resource for people involved in advocating secularism in, say, the US. Indeed, it will be of more immediate use to them than, say, Nussbaum's book, which is quite pro-religious, whereas Freedom of Religion and the Secular State is about as neutral as it's possible to be on the subject of the truth and value of religion.

If I were deliberately setting out to offer advice on organisation of the secularist movement, I'd think of quite a few things to say, some of which have been said by others in the past. For example, I'd say, as others have said, that there are pragmatic reasons, as well as principled reasons, for secularists to defend freedom of speech - and when we do so, that should include defending the free speech of our opponents. There are doubtless many other practical points like this, and I think that conferences, panels, and seminars are good places to discuss them. There's no reason why they couldn't also be discussed in books, but we should, I think, go on thrashing out these sorts of issues face to face, in real time, whenever we can.

Michael Brull on defamation law in Australia (more)

Michael Brull (whose views on defamation law have come up previously) has a detailed article on the subject in Overland. I can get behind just about all of what he has to say (there are no particular points of disagreement).

I do think - as evidently does Brull - that we need some kind of limited defamation law. I made that point in writing on the ABC Religion and Ethics Portal awhile back, while also making the point that defamation law must be carefully constrained in what it seeks to achieve.

Though I am a free speech advocate, I don't oppose defamation law completely. We do need some protection of individual reputations from lies that could ruin careers or lead to ostracism. Human beings are social animals, and we cannot survive - we certainly cannot flourish - if our good reputations are trashed beyond a certain point. A credible sounding lie to the effect that somebody is a paedophile, for example, could inflict a kind of social death on that person.

But the question still remains: How protective should defamation law be when it comes to such things as speech about the motivations of public figures when they engage in political activism?

Bear in mind that public figures are well placed to put their own sides to a story, especially when they are misrepresented by individuals who actually have less public reach than they do. Bear in mind, too, that individuals can be ruined financially by the costs of defamation proceedings. This can force people with ordinary resources to back down and give humiliating insincere apologies, in order to avoid litigation. Alternatively, some might be deterred from publishing in the first place on what appear to be matters of public interest.

I submit that, as a general rule, defamation law should not be used to chill debate about the public images and motivations of politicians, political activists and other such public figures. If current defamation law in Australia allows that to happen, so much for current defamation law in Australia. It needs to be amended, especially to provide individuals such as unaffiliated bloggers - who don't have the resources of media corporations behind them - with sufficient protection from litigation.

In the thread, Helen Pringle accused me of contradicting myself, but there is no contradiction. You can quite consistently (1) think that some restrictions of defamatory speech are needed, particularly against highly-damaging but credible lies from parties with great access to the public AND ALSO (2) ask just how protective these laws should be, particularly in relation to such matters as the lobbying activities and motivations of public figures AND ALSO (3) conclude that the law is currently too protective and should be scaled back to try to avoid chilling legitimate speech.

Apparently this did not sit well with Pringle, who doesn't seem (judge for yourself from what she says on the thread) to have been able to make head or tail of it all, but it is a perfectly coherent and principled position.

Meanwhile, is current defamation law in Australia too protective of plaintiffs and too restrictive of legitimate speech? Yes, it is. Brull tells us quite a bit about why he'd like to pare the law of defamation right back. He concludes:

It is unpleasant being subjected to such harsh criticism, especially if one feels the criticism unwarranted. However, society suffers more severely when it is not free to discuss issues that it feels are of significance. I think a superior balance would be struck if political discussion, broadly construed, was entirely free of defamation laws. In other areas, the burden on the plaintiff should be increased they should have to prove: the defamatory statement was false, damages and common law malice. If it becomes difficult for a plaintiff to win a defamation lawsuit, it will at least become less effective as a threat.

In terms of freedom of speech, the difference between defamation laws and racial vilification laws is that the latter seem to be used far less often. Which is perhaps why the Bolt case saw no chilling effect. The different socioeconomic groups these laws are designed to protect seems to also be a significant difference. The Racial Discrimination Act is to defend racial minorities. Defamation laws protect the wealthy and powerful. Right-wing politicians and commentators are urging the right to offend and insult racial minorities. If they do not equally speak out in opposition to our defamation laws, we will know this is not because of their concern about freedom of speech in Australia.

Catholic propaganda against same-sex marriage

This is a placeholder - it may be worth coming back to it. At the very least, you can see a blatant attempt by the Catholic Church to get its theological view of marriage accepted in the political process. Do its arguments strike you as secular ones? Perhaps some do strike you as facially secular - okay, do these "secular" arguments, strike you as at all strong? Do the factual claims relied on have any serious scientific backing? What sorts of assumptions are being made but not stated?

I'll leave all this for now as an exercise for readers. It at least shows the kinds of highly-organised efforts we are up against when we complain about religious interference in politics.

On Gazzaniga on free will

Here at Talking Philosophy - a new post.

Sunday supervillainy - yes, Wanda is back! And fighting MODOK.

The Scarlet Witch - Wanda Maximoff - is a featured character in Avengers vs X-Men# 0, the prequel to the main event. It is also a sequel to Avengers # 24.1 (a surprisingly downbeat story about The Vision, who is also back). How does anyone manage to follow this stuff? Oh well, here I am following some of it for you.

In Avengers vs X-Men # 0, Wanda gets in a fight with the villainous MODOK, whose amazingly megacephalic presence alone would be enough to justify reading the story.

Later on, The Vision - Wanda's android husband, who has recently been put back together from destruction via some help from Iron Man plus his self-repair mechanisms then kicking in - is not too happy with his wife for destroying him (some years back in our time, but not so long ago in his). He boots her out of his artificial life, and out of any opportunity, for the moment, of rejoining the Avengers. A bit complicated, with all the convoluted, soap-opera-y back story that has to be conveyed, but fun enough in a kind of emo way.

I guess next time I can report in on what happens in Avengers vs X-men #1.

Religion, guilt, and sexuality

Worth reading - not that the studies referred to tell us anything surprising. Religion tends to produce guilt, even for people in monogamous heterosexual relationships, and it's guilt that makes perfectly healthy pleasures less pleasurable.