Some of the following are coercive (imposed by state authority) and some are not; in some instances, these incursions on freedom occur because as Frank Furedi has pointed out, people who know better don’t speak up.
- Eatock vs Bolt
- Sir Timothy Hunt
- Nelson Mandela joke
Kyol Blakely, for the ABC:
I don’t feel comfortable teaching the way that western society has benefited Australia.
The U.S. Supreme Court takes it upon itself to circumvent any will of the people, and in a 5-4 vote, declares it constitutional for gays to marry:
With 5-4 ruling in Obergefell v Hodges, justices determine right to marriage equality is protected under constitution in decision hailed as ‘victory of love’;
“This is a wonderful day for equality”
Jan 27: Previously passed law enacted in France in an effort to curb obesity levels. The law prohibits businesses from offering free or fixed price soft drink refills. To the Social Justice Warrior, this is probably hailed as yet another crowning achievement, but to those who despise big government imposing its will on the populace, this seems like a restriction on freedom – like the laws that prevent people who (god knows why – or how: $$) stay out paying for drinks into the early hours of the morning. It is another involuntary social control imposed upon citizens, a blatant one; unlike the Greens proposal over here not too long ago of a sugar tax. Such tactics, although well intentioned (possibly) is patronizing and degrades individuals’ autonomy over their lives and their choices – in a subtle, insidious way. Let’s assume that it actually would work (which is of secondary importance to me); do you like to give people free choice over looking after their health, or do you favour big government imposing regulations in effort to try and help them?
A final decision about an incident at Wetherby bus station in 2012; legal action in court over a woman with a baby in a pram refusing to vacate her bus seat for a disabled person.