Apparently, the Aussie notion of a “fair go for all” means stealing my money to pay this clown to poison the minds of children:
I am a teacher. I teach at a secondary school in Sydney’s western suburbs
In fact, Mr. Bob Treasure is the head teacher of a faculty at the Erskine Park High School in Sydney. He’s also an enthusiastic supporter of totalitarianism:
What’s more, the considerably greater proportion of GDP expenditure on education in Cuba is spread evenly. It is designed to make opportunity the same for all. There is no palpable nor obscene inequality of private schools with abundant resources and public schools with few. The Cuban education system is one built upon social justice, and for that we say:
‘VIVA FIDEL!’
Sounds wonderful.
Blessed with Fidel’s munificent education system, the young Cuban Eloi can use their reading skills on books they’ll get jailed for reading, research things on the internet which they’re not permitted to access, learn about other countries they’re not allowed to travel to, learn about their government which they’re not allowed to oppose.
Well, at least if they get sick, they’ll be taken care of in Cuba’s glorious “free” healthcare system.
This is something of which the Cuban people are rightly proud, and it is something for which we say:
‘VIVA FIDEL!’
Well, I loved the cockroaches and blood on the floor. Very colourful. Viva Fidel!
Just the kinda guy we need teaching the young’ns.
I hope the bastard ends up under Val Prieto’s floorboards.
Australian Libertarian Society (old site) 
Hang on. Does he impose his political opinions on his students?
As I’ve suggested before, if Thoughts on Freedom is the official blog of the LDP, intemperate and immoderate language and violent imagery is not a good look for an aspiring political party attempting to garner support for serious consideration of their policies.
Ignoring all the extrapolated conjecture implying cause and effect, what is so objectionable about the notion of all our kids receiving a well-funded and decent education, regardless of family background or financial capacity? It is the one singly important investment we can make as a nation. Might even reduce the amount of money we have to spend on defense, which is the only legitimate reason for tax that extreme libertarians will accept.
When was the last time you visited a classroom or talked with those who are in classrooms? Despite wild allegations of Maoist ideologues brainwashing our children, the culture in public schools is very cautious with regard to anything remotely controversial – unless you include studying history from more than one perspective (I guess that’s why we have the history wars).
As a parent I’d be equally alarmed if my child was being indoctrinated with neo-conservatism or libertarianism. But I would like them to understand something about history, culture, democracy, justice and the contest if ideas. But that’s a problem for some people. If people are well-educated they are more likely to recognise a crock of shit when they see one.
We all have a right to our political views, even when they are off the planet.
Even assuming he pushes his crap on the kids, they’ll figure out soon enough that he’s a wacko. I lot of my contemporaries were anti-US, anti-Vietnam war fanatics who went on to become teachers. They quite openly flogged their prejudices in the classrooms, but the kids were very rarely taken in by it.
My main concern would be that this guy is quite likely a luminary in the teachers union. Sometimes the dickhead government thinks the union is worth listening to.
Slim, this is the blog of the Australian Libertarian Society.
The blog of the LDP is here: http://ldpblog.wordpress.com/
The LDP’s policies are here: http://www.ldp.org.au/ Unless it’s there, it’s not policy.
Posts and comments by individual contributors to blogs are always their own thoughts and never represent anyone.
“We all have a right to our political views, even when they are off the planet.”
Of course he does. What he doesn’t have is a right to use our money to spread them.
Putting on my devils advocate hat for a moment, socialists are allowed to declare admiration for Cuba’s health and education funding in the same way many Libertarians might talk about Friedman in Chile or Singapore’s economic freedom, without being cut down for the less freedom loving aspects of those nations.
Rational argument disabusing the ideas of social justice and state funded education and health is one thing, accusing people of supporting totalitarianism. The guy clearly qualifies his support with the statement “The Cuban education system is one built upon social justice, and for that we say: ‘VIVA FIDEL!’”. A Libertarian might even say “The Chilean economy is founded on the principles of the Chicago School of Economics, and for that we say: ‘VIVA PINOCHET!'”. Such statements may be naive, but the are not satements endorsing state violence and oppression.
If his advocacy of Cuba goes beyond admiration for socialist ideals of free education and welfare to actively endorsing the means required to enforce such regimes, by all means cut him down for the SOCIALIST LAP DOG that he is.
Sorry for the confusion about the sites, David. I’ve made that mistake before, but at least I think I know why now – both sites are from WordPress and are using the same theme, even down to the Offical Blog bit.
Kinda looks like a branding thing. Maybe that’s intended, otherwise change the theme? As a branding, it clearly works for me, for I keep associating it with the LDP site, in which case my original observation about moderation still has some merit.
“Such statements may be naive, but the are not satements endorsing state violence and oppression.”
Brendan, did you actually read the linked article? If it isn’t a glowing puff-piece endorsement of a totalitarian regime, I don’t know what is.
The official LDP blog is at: ldpblog.wordpress.com
The colour schemes are about as different as you can get with wordpress. Black and Green versus Blue and White.
Brendan, did you actually read the linked article?
I have now, and the bloke is blinkered in an extreme way, and that simply makes him extremely naive. Being stupid is simply that. If this is the calibre of “comrade” then Australia has no fear of a socialist revolution. If any of his politics does filter through into his class, the vast majority of students would simply dismiss him.
If it isn’t a glowing puff-piece endorsement of a totalitarian regime, I don’t know what is.
The guy is a Quisling, nothing more, we’re just lucky this guys “hero” is nothing more than a two bit dictator who’s world status was reliant on Soviet subsidies, rather than a bloke with any real power. If he was a university lecturer, I’d be a bit more worried. College students are more susceptable to bullshit than teenagers. A nice lttle letter to his school’s PTA with a reprint of his diatribe would probably suffice to end his nonsense.
Have to say, if he wants to speak shit, let him speak shit. Sure, I don’t like the idea of him doing it on my dime, which is why a letter to the P & C would probably suffice. They’ll know if he’s spouting communist tripe to the kiddies. If he’s not, then let him rot in his own intellectual torpor. If he is, they’ll make his life pretty damn uncomfortable.
That issue aside, though, I really, really disliked the large number of commie fellow travellers I encountered while teaching. Most of them were older, and they had the whole gig set up to benefit themselves – including shovelling all the rotten classes onto younger, less ideological teaching staff. My last gig was in a head of department role, and you should have heard them squeal when I redid the timetable so that every member of staff had to take at least one crappy class.
So this guy writes a blog post about Castro’s Cuba. He’s a teacher and a bloody commie so he MUST be indoctrinating his students with his deluded and poisonous political views. Dob him in to his employer! Joe McCarthy would be pleased. Make him prove that he’s not guilty of our charges. SL I would expect you’d know better.
Welcome to the thought police. Ugly. Just shows you gotta watch what you say on the interwebs.
Actually I think the suggestion was to dob him in to the P&C and let them decide if it is appropriate to dob him in to his employer.
For the record I agree that individuals (even those on the public teat) have a right to free association and free speech in their own time. Several of the libertarians that frequent this site are either on the public payroll or have been in the past. As the old saying goes I don’t like what he says but I’ll defend his right to say it.
Dob him in to the P&C is even worse IMO – more likely to have a touch of the lynch mob about it. Why should he be dobbed in at all? On the basis of a blogger’s suspicion? On what grounds? On what evidence? Appalling sentiments for people advocating liberty. Bring back HUAC, I say!
Presumption of innocence? So much for freedom, or rule of law and justice for that matter. Debates like this make some libertarians come across as rigid ideologues whose sole motivation is resentment at paying tax.
Slim,
Keep it together. It’s been several decades since the P&C last lynched a communist. They don’t even wear hoods at P&C meetings these days. I think they occasionally sacrifice a few virgins but these days it’s just for fun.
Regards,
Terje.
“Of course he does. What he doesn’t have is a right to use our money to spread them.”
Your evidence that he does this is…?
“Keep it together. It’s been several decades since the P&C last lynched a communist. They don’t even wear hoods at P&C meetings these days. I think they occasionally sacrifice a few virgins but these days it’s just for fun.”
No wonder membership is dropping. I bet the Black Mass isn’t even in Latin these days.
Terje, I am keeping it together – I’m not the one suggesting that an individual’s employment be vexatiously jeopardized because of an opinion written on a blog.
I’m presuming it was all late-night hot-air, but surely this is an unacceptable threat worthy of our condemnation?
Slim,
The “C” in P&C stands for citizens. The whole point of the thing is that there should be a venue where citizens like Tex can vent their concerns. I suspect that most of the other “C”s and most of the “P”s would tell Tex to calm down, breath slowly and avoid getting overly excited. The image of them all charging off spontaneously with pitchfork in hand does not seem at all realistic.
In any case Tex was essentially being told politely that nobody here has any intention of taking any action in relation to this matter (beyond nodding their heads) but if he feels that it is really important he can try down the road at the P&C.
Regards,
Terje.
Dobbing in is just another use of free speech.
Is it McCarthyite to point out a speech that this fellow himself made available for all to see on the Internet? Don’t be ridiculous, Slim.
Dobbing in is just another use of free speech.
Quite true, but it’s very unaustralian. In fact, agreeing not to be a dobber could go in the citizenship test. Better than Howard’s mateship.
I’m not the one suggesting that an individual’s employment be vexatiously jeopardized because of an opinion written on a blog.
I’m presuming it was all late-night hot-air, but surely this is an unacceptable threat worthy of our condemnation?
Um, what “threat” would that be exactly?
The idiot made a public speech, and used his employment status in that very speech to defend a totalitarian ideology. If he isn’t prepared to be condemned for it, maybe he should have kept his mouth shut in the first place.
In any case Tex was essentially being told politely that nobody here has any intention of taking any action in relation to this matter (beyond nodding their heads) but if he feels that it is really important he can try down the road at the P&C.
I wasn’t even suggesting anyone take any action over it.
Tex – the ‘threat’ you inquire about is in the same comment you quoted – the threat of an individual’s employment being vexatiously jeopardized because of an opinion written on a blog. Condemn his opinion certainly – that’s not the issue. Defeat him with dazzling logic and piercing argument, but threaten (even idly) with action at his place of employment or even hoping the bastard ends up under Val Prieto’s floorboards? What happened to freedom and liberty? Or is that only for those we agree with?
Yes Jason, dobbing is a form of ‘free speech’. So in the name of free speech it would be OK to make trouble at person’s place of employment for an opinion expressed on a blog?. McCarthyism involved persecution (usually through loss of employment) of individuals because of their political beliefs, or even alleged beliefs and alleged sympathies for communism. By McCarthy’s standards, any criticism of the government came to be regarded as communist sympathising. I assume you would be aware of this as an educated person, so please don’t misrepresent my point with diversionary ridicule.
Terje, I thought blogs like this one were suitable venues for citizens like Tex to vent his concerns. Around my neck of the woods, P&C committees are usually Parents & Friends these days.
I understand that no-one is seriously suggesting they are going to dob him in, but it comes back to my original point – threatening language and behaviour does nothing to further debate or win support for your beliefs. Quite the contrary.
‘Parents and Friends’ is used at private schools. ‘Parents and Citizens’ is the phrase used in government schools.
Cuba effectively puts its AIDS sufferers in concentration camps. That’s the great Cuban health system at work. If this guy was spruiking for the old South African apartheid regime would anyone think he was any less of a dickhead who had any public shunning coming?
Anyone care to address the issues I’ve raised or just keep on nitpicking and conjecturing about what a dickhead he must be?
Probably much better to ask him what happens to Cuba academics who are too lippy – and tell him where they do end up.
the pics from the Cuban hospital are sickening. What’s even more sickening is often reading how much these leftoids love Fidel for offering “free”medical. These brainwashed dickheads don’t realize just what a fraud this cuban medical stchitk is.
Here is a deal.
If any leftoid is willing to take me up on it.
I make a standing offer of airfare + $7,000 for any lefty who is willing to have any form of gastro surgery in Cuba and can prove this. I want pics, records of the illness (must be castro because I want stomach opened up) and pics of the incision in the cuban hospital. i also want proof that no Oz medication was taken inside the country such as western anitbiotics.
Pingback: Club Troppo » Friday’s Missing Link
Anyone care to address the issues I’ve raised or just keep on nitpicking and conjecturing about what a dickhead he must be?
Why is informing the P&C that there school is employing a Castro sympathiser such a big deal. My suggestion to “dob him in” was primarily if he was using a public school as a soapbox for his private political beliefs. You’d have to be really concerned about a teacher’s actions in his classroom to follow though.
This may sound like back tracking, but honestly I was defending the fool’s right to be an idiot, as was SL. He can spout any nonsense he likes, that is cost of free speech, but if he was acting in any way to influence his students inappropriately, then he should answer to his employers. The sort of behaviour I’m talking about is getting his students to write letters to newspapers, or attend protest rallies, by using his influence as a teacher.
Informing the P&C simply because of his political views expressed outside his work place smacks of McCarthyism as I’ve said.
If he was using a public school as a soapbox, that is another matter. Anyone who has worked in a public school recently will know that anything untoward or controversial in the classroom will be found out by parents at home. Parents and students are no-longer backwards in coming forward to advise school authorities of their concerns, unlike Howard’s halcyon days of the 50s when students knew their place and always did and believed what teachers told them.
I appreciate your clarification defending the right of a fool to be an idiot. I heartily agree, as I do with your concern about influencing students inappropriately. But I think it’s stretching blog stoushes between consenting adults a tad too far when fellow bloggers representing freedom and liberty suggest dobbing him in without the merest thread of evidence, and serve him right, too!.
Regardless of the foolishness or otherwise of his political opinions, what happened to giving someone the benefit of doubt when it comes to his professionalism at work. I wouldn’t imagine for a moment that the ill-behaviour of some regulars here manifests in their professional activities.
What happens in the blog stays in the blog!
But I think it’s stretching blog stoushes between consenting adults a tad too far when fellow bloggers representing freedom and liberty suggest dobbing him in without the merest thread of evidence, and serve him right, too!.
(high horse) I think you’re reading too much into this. Tex was blowing off some steam, I and others couldn’t see what the real fuss was about and defended the guys right to free speech and an off the cuff remark was made suggesting further action. To chase up with a P&C would constitute real action, and people who say one thing on a blog may think twice before they take action in the real world. Pointing out an appropriate course of action if Tex had serious concerns is not the same as performing that course of action. Long live free speech. (/high horse)
Blogs, of course, are meant to be read. All we really have are words and how we choose to use them.
I can reasonably assume that the original post hoping he would be buried under the floorboards wasn’t meant to be taken seriously. But the ugly and violent content of the words remain. It’s much easier to read too much into it when the words are particularly strident, abusive or threatening.
So as blog writers we would server the craft better if we were careful with our words and the sentiments they convey or have construed upon them. We might better understand our common ground with less emphasis on ritualistic war cries to confirm our tribal differences.
I guess that’s one advantage man has over the other primates – we can use language rather than screeching at each other, jumping up and down, thumping our chests and wearing threatening expressions.
Presumption of innocence? So much for freedom, or rule of law and justice for that matter. Debates like this make some libertarians come across as rigid ideologues whose sole motivation is resentment at paying tax.
Freedom of speech does not and has not ever included freedom from the consequences of that speech.
If you speak retarded shit and get sacked from your job as a result, the principle of freedom of speech has not been compromised in any way, shape or form. It’s only if the government tries to supress your speech or imprison you for it that freedom of speech has been violated.
Yobbo’s right. Great points
————————————————-
Free speech is 95% the right to political dissent in public without fear of retribution from the state .
and telepathy cuts down on your phone bills too..
JC – would the other 5% be the right to speak retarded shit without being dobbed in to one’s employer by free-speech loving libertarians?
Slim, exactly how does reporting what someone said violate “freedom of speech”?
I’ve made the same point half a dozen times on this thread already, Tex.
Maybe Slim should change his name to Slow.
Not if on my taxpaying dime, Slim. What do reckon?
I reckon if its my dime being wasted I have a right to speak up.
Agreed, it doesn’t. I find objectionable the attitude that he be punished for having an opinion different to yours, even in the absence of evidence that he is acting unprofessionally and inappropriately.
slim
Get something straight. He is publicly supporting a political system that has been respsonsible for the murder of 150 million souls the past century. I guess you wouldn’t have a problem with a Nazi sympathizer saying things about Hitler in the same way.
We should have the right to fire a leninist and supporter of mass murderers . Fuck him.
Taxeaters don’t have the right to go round preaching about commie killers and expect no reprussions. If I had an employee coming to work wearing a Nazi brown shirt, I’d fire him and I would be in my perfect right to do so. Why the fuck does a taxeater think he has special rights because he is in governemt job. Why does a taxeating job give him special rights to make comments supportive of a Killer. What if he said he like having sex with kids? It’s the same thing.
Fuck him. Off with his professional head.
Well I’m glad we cleared that up, then. We wouldn’t want to tolerate extreme points of view.
Slim
do you think a raging nazi shopuld be allowed to teach in schools and who publicly states his views. If so why? If not why not?
“…what is so objectionable about the notion of all our kids receiving a well-funded and decent education, regardless of family background or financial capacity?”
Well for starters, there’s the assumption that all of those kids and their parents are too stupid to be able to choose for themselves what education services they would like to have.
There’s the fact that you have to treat other people liberties as property of the state, use threats of fines and prison, and violate their property rights in order to get the money to pay for it.
There’s the fact that the quality of the service is so low that even the advocates of the service admit that they couldn’t get people to actually consume it without making it a criminal offence not to ’cause’ your child to attend.
There’s the fact that by describing this as ‘an investment’ you are merely displaying your ignorance of what you are talking about.
There’s the fact that you don’t own those kids, and neither does the state. They are not ‘our’ kids. They are not communal property.
There’s the fact that the system takes away from parents and students the right to decide what is taught, and gives it in to the hands of a tiny minority elite of bureaucrats subject to the dictates of arbitrary political fashion.
There’s the fact that it spawns massive bureaucratic vested interests opposed to the best interests of the student as judged by the child’s parents and by the student.
There’s the fact that the system is currenty sponsoring a plague of psychiatric medicalising of ordinary human behaviour, and that the state actually financially rewards schools the more diagnoses of ‘ADHD’ they can muster.
Shall I go on? You really need to catch up with intellectual events of the past century.
Oh yes. And there’s the fact that the system, by its very existence, prevents the existence of a greater quality, diversity, and economy of educational services.
Hey Slim: since the Department of Education is so good, perhaps we should have a ‘Department of Food’ with forced contributions, a hierarchical bureaucracy in cahoots wtih a left-wing union, compulsory attendance at eating places on the ground that food is so necessary and good, and a uniform menu for the whole population?
There’s the fact that the only possible reason for a compulsion-based system is that you know the fact that the people would not choose to pay for it if they were free to choosee…
Two things (since I originally made the P & C suggestion):
1. In his piece of Castro puffery, he repeatedly flagged his dayjob. It’s that factoid that leapt out at me, which is why I included this piece in Missing Link over at Club Troppo. That concerns me.
2. Being called to account for yourself as a teacher before the school P & C is no bad thing. I’ve had it done to me. During 2001 – when I was working as a secondary teacher (at a school which shall remain nameless), I was also writing a regular column for The Courier-Mail.
Perhaps due to the school’s location – in a pretty rough area – it took a while for the school P & C to wake up that the person teaching PE and the CM writer were one and the same. I never told the school, and two or so months after I started there, I got carpeted.
The CM had been bucketing schools in the area quite nastily for a good six months, and there’d been an unpleasant inter-school gang fight out in front of my school in the previoius week. The P & C (and principal) were (justly) concerned the incident would turn up in the paper, particularly as I hadn’t told them I was also journalisting on the side.
I pointed out that I was an opinion writer, not a news-hound, and that my first loyalty was to the school. I also assured them that I’d never use their school for the purposes of newsgathering. Everything was defused, everyone went away happy, and I was there for the rest of the year and had an excellent teaching experience. But the P & C had every right to call me in, as they would in this case.
I know being called to account has McCarthyist overtones for a lot of lefties, but sometimes it can be no bad thing, either.
I’ve been investigating Libertarianism as it seems to make the most sense to me. I must say I was pretty disappointed to see this post when I was looking into Australian Libertarian activities.
I thought it was the left that resorted to name calling. I guess there are people who subscribe to attacking the person as opposed to the argument on all sides of the political spectrum.
bummer.
Why don’t you join in and set an example for us all?
You would be most welcome, as are civil and intelligent comments, even if we drop the ball ourselves occasionally.
Read all of the posts I say, then make a judgement.
I thought it was the left that resorted to name calling. I guess there are people who subscribe to attacking the person as opposed to the argument on all sides of the political spectrum.
People who endorse totalitarian regimes don’t deserve good manners.
As for his “arguments”, those were pretty well refuted in the links I gave.
Good manners cost nothing, and bad manners help nobody.
There is a difference between a direct and honest statement that happens to cause offence and a statement that is designed merely to give offence. It is not that everbody “deserves” good manners but rather that bad manners are mostly self defeating and disfunctional.
Hey Tex,
Don’t you think arguments are much more difficult to refute and have a lot more cred when they’re pure logic with no emotion?
Cheers
Ben
Don’t you think arguments are much more difficult to refute and have a lot more cred when they’re pure logic with no emotion?
All that’s required is fact, not good manners…..and the facts here are beyond dispute.
There is a difference between a direct and honest statement that happens to cause offence and a statement that is designed merely to give offence
You think my post was “designed merely to give offence”?
No. I was responding to this:-
Tex,
The idea that all you need is logic is completed contradicted by the history of ideas. Here is a perfect example. Ludwig Boltzmann, the thermodynamics whiz, was a soft spoken quiet man who revolutionised our understanding of thermodynamics. Trying to defend his ideas at a conference he was shouted down. Tragically he died just months before his ideas were experimentally proven. If he had a bulldog like Darwin, he would have won the day. Indeed, one wonders how successful Darwin’s ideas would have been if not for Huxley because many people had posited evolution long before Darwin but they did not have their bulldog.
As Terje has stated we come to our beliefs through a variety of causes and logic and is only one of these. We are not Spocks and anyone who thinks that they are the rational ones and those over there aren’t the rational ones might be well served by reading Carl Jung’s “The Undiscovered Self”. People still have this tendency to perceive rationality and logic as being “out there” as some objective measure. The history of science makes a complete lie of that. In fact such a stance is epistemological dualism, a relic from the age of reason so deeply embedded in our culture that we are often barely conscious of it. It’s even evident when people start talking about the “logical part” of the brain and the “emotional part”. Ha. Such stupid nonsense.
I think you guys may be over-reacting to Tex’s post. I agree that the tone would have been better without the initial “asshole” comment… but besides that he was simply voicing his legitimate dispair that these Castro-loving chaps are teaching Australia’s children. That’s a pretty normal concern to have (and mention) on a libertarian blog.
DS & Terje — I agree that our path to our beliefs are dictated by many things. When/if Tex wanted to be more convincing I’m sure he could be but this post was aimed at libertarians and was a longer version of “hey guys… check this out… isn’t it a crap state of affairs”.
…and on that note, the naughty language has been cleaned up.
When/if Tex wanted to be more convincing I’m sure he could be but this post was aimed at libertarians and was a longer version of “hey guys… check this out… isn’t it a crap state of affairs”.
Oh yes, I could do a hundred posts on Fidel’s workers paradise without breaking a sweat, but I thought the fact that one of our public tax leeches is pushing this stuff was of particular interest to Oz libertarians.
John,
If you look back over the comments you will see that I never objected to the article by Tex or even the tone of the article. Mostly I was telling Slim that getting upset at Tex was an over reaction. My recent comments were a result of an emergent topic (ie the virtue of bad manners and how to persuade people). And yes I’m sure Tex could be more convincing if he wanted to influence a wider audience.
Regards,
Terje.
I would be happy to engage in a debate where comparitive analyses are drawn to Cuba if only people would concede that this Fadel model was marred constantly by an American regime hell-bent on destroying them. So much so that there are countless stories of wicked attempts likes CIA planes dropping infestive locusts on their corn crops and so on and so on.
So the fact that this state survived that, despite being cut off from the biggest consumer in the world who happened to be their nearest neighbour – and that people would ignore that when caring to debate about Cuba? How can you call yourself serious if you ignore that element of what would therefore be an interesting debate?
Do none of you understand what I am talking about?
People say, “Communism and such models are a failure. Just look at Cuba”? – But Cuba is still even today being blocked from trading with the US and yet they sruvived all that tyranny and trechery? You see if you get your head out of your asses we could have very interesting debates here.
Jake you’re a looney fuck off.
“Communism and such models are a failure. Just look at Cuba”
Yes.
http://www.therealcuba.com/Page10.htm
Go take your ridiculous reptilian Jew baiting elsewhere.
Jake, you’re a conspiracy nutter, bugger off.
Check out “The real cuba” on google to refute Jake’s idiocy.