Page 1270 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 24 April 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR KAINE: I am talking about vicious, nasty videos. You can call them what you like, but I have used the terms that seem most apt to me. This debate has been characterised by what I regard as an unpleasant ploy, and it is one to which people resort when they are not convinced that their argument is persuasive. You denigrate your opponents, destroy their credibility, call them names and accuse them of censorship, as though this is somehow bad and, if you label somebody as imposing censorship, that person is automatically bad. If that does not work, you tie them up with some depraved dictator who everybody knows is bad. You even publish a little brochure which goes out with people's pictures on it. They are convicted by association. My colleague Dr Kinloch referred to this.
I do not regard that as a legitimate means of debate. If you want to debate the subject, get on the floor of the house and debate it. Let us do away with these ploys that people use, as I said. When they are not convinced of the strength of their argument they attack their opponents. That is what has been going on, on the floor of this house. It has also been going on in the community, in our newspapers and elsewhere. I think the people in here who are to vote shortly need to think about some of these things. Why was it necessary to attempt to destroy people's characters? Why was it necessary to attack their credibility? If the argument is so strong, why resort to that?
Along with other people on the floor of this house, I agree with the general proposition that restricting or banning anything is always, to a greater or lesser degree, unacceptable in a democratic society. But there are minority views that have to be accepted. There was some debate earlier this evening about whether the people who want X-rated videos banned are the majority or the minority. It does not matter, because it is the responsibility of this institution to protect the rights of the minority, and if they are the minority their rights have to be protected just as much as those of the majority. So the debate as to whether they are the silent majority - the innuendo is that they are a bunch of kooks - is part of that argument. You attack your opposition. Again, if your argument is so good, depend on your argument; do not attack the people who have a different opinion from yours.
Mr Moore: Put a valid argument. Where is your argument? You can't even come up with an argument. Where is your valid argument?
MR KAINE: Respect their right to have a view.
Mr Moore: Who are you talking about? Is this an attack?
MR KAINE: Argue against it if you can, but deal with the matter on its merits.
Mr Moore: What about some argument?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .