The middle-east related examples of such hypocrisy have been cited often enough that I do not intend to repeat them here. But there are many more mundane examples of this phenomenon. For example, why is it racist for right-minded people to suggest that there is a real limit as to the applicability of (alleged) Aboriginal customary law when it comes to issues like violence or sexual abuse? If anything, is it not more racist to suggest that Aborigines are racially prone to sexual and physical abuse and therefore we must give them “allowances” for their inability to control their behaviour?

This is no better than conservatives in Hong Kong saying that the territory is not ready for democracy due to an “immature” political culture. To me that’s racist too because it suggests implicitly that Chinese people are culturally incapable of handling democracy and democratic institutions.

Having said all that, I do have an issue to take with the logic of one of your arguments (but even here I tend to agree with the broad gist of it, my issue is purely intellectual in terms of the logical conclusions to one of your arguments). You say that George Bush doesn’t cause terrorists. Terrorists choose individually to become terrorists. I know what you are getting at there but isn’t that a bit like the NRA in America saying “guns don’t kill, people do”?

I think the better argument is that Bush and his policies has created an environment conducive to turning people to terrorism, but the people that actually turn to terrorism cannot under any circumstances have their actions justified by committing such acts. Then it would be consistent with the logic that guns may be conducive to more fatal murderous acts, but just because it’s available for use doesn’t mean that a person using it to kill can say “oh, but the gun was there to be used! It’s society’s fault for making the gun so accessible!”.

(a) cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed; and

(b) Leunig’s cartoon comparing Auschwitz with modern day Israel.

Some commentators and readers in The Age responded in what I saw as an entirely inconsistent manner.

On the one hand, commentators were deploring the cartoons depicting Mohammed as disrespectful and offensive. On the other hand they were praising Leunig’s cartoon as an important expression of free speech. From my point of view, each of the cartoons has a capacity to be offensive to a particular group in our society. But it could be argued that freedom of speech means that all the cartoons should be published (despite the capacity to offend) to promote debate.

Why one rule for one religion and a different rule for another? To my mind, you have to choose either one point of view or the other.

I should make it clear that I do not think that all the Left are siding with the Islamists. I don’t know the people you live with and I’m not aware of their beliefs. I certainly did not intend to criticise them or comment about their beliefs.

However, in some lines of left wing thought, terrorism and the like is seen as a legitimate form of protest against the colonial power. I refer particularly to the works of Franz Fanon, a radical Algerian who argued that the colonised should violently throw off the shackles of colonisation.

Further, cultural relativism has been developed in postcolonial left wing thought for at least the last 20 years, with the idea that privileged Westerners should not comment or critique the culture of the “Other”. I could cite various academics, but I suspect that would just bore everyone.

I’m just not comfortable with cultural relativism, because I am at heart a “liberal” (with a small l, not a big L!).

I assure you, I am not defending Bush or the other neo-conservatives. I think Bush is a very stupid and simplistic man who is pushing our world to the brink of disaster with his “War on Terror”. The “War on Terror” is likely to perpetuate terror rather than help anything. The whole situation fills me with chagrin.

However, all political persuasions are capable of bringing war and disaster to the world. Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot were all left wing and were responsible for the deaths of millions of people. From my point of view, it’s not the “flavour” of politics that is the problem. It seems that some of the worst wrongs happen when people are convinced they are right (whether they are left wing, right wing, religious or atheist).

I’m not alone in the feelings I have expressed in my post. You may be interested to read “The Euston Manifesto”, a statement by some prominent liberal and left wing commentators:
http://eustonmanifesto.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=41

Finally, I thank you for having the courage to write a critical comment. I believe that it is really important to discuss these things and to decide why we believe as we do.

I also live with a group of people who can easily be described as “activists”, in that they have a strong idea about how the world should be - just, peaceful and sustainable - and they engage in action outside governments (discussions, forums, marches, benefits) to promote social change.

I assure you, none of these people sanctify any religion over any other. So I don’t know which “left” you’re talking about. All of them believe in respect, understanding and compassion between people.

I guess my point is that there are dickheads on all sides. I just tend to think that neo-conservative dickheads do a whole lot more damage (see USA government).

The book you mentioned sounds fascinating. I am not a Christian myself, but I recognise that Judaeo-Christian ethics are central to the way I think and why I believe what I do. Not to mention why I believe that people should be treated justly - “do unto others as you would have them do to you”! This is part of the reason why I studied Judaism, Christianity and Islam - to understand these religions and the importance they have had in shaping my culture and our world.

And don’t get me started on the subject of people who know nothing but go to rallys! When I was somewhat involved in Aboriginal activism, some grungy young thing said to me very self-importantly “I don’t know any Aborigines, but what I think should happen to them is…” That made me mad! It’s fine to have a view on what should happen, but if you’re going to go out and be an activist, lobbying for change, maybe you should know at least a few Aboriginal people to check that they actually want what you’re lobbying for!

Hmm, there endeth MY rant.