Racists and Jihadis both have the right of free speech

The ultimate victors here are the established pillars of the conservative order.

What is interesting is how some of the organisers of the counter rallies have come to deny that their purpose is to use pre-emptive force. They are quoted as saying that the intent of the counter rallies has always been peaceful and defensive. This is not true, and I personally know it not to be true as stated above.

Why the denial? Simple. It is recognised that pre-emptive violence against protestors, no matter of what view, is opposed by mainstream Australia and is contrary to the Australian experience.

What of the second of our examples, that of the Right?

The Zaky Mallah affair, and Australia's existing sedition laws, shows how thin be the Right's commitment to free speech.

Let us assume the worst of Zaky Mallah. That is that he was a jihadist, is a jihadist, and used the bully pulpit of ABC Q&A to promote the jihadi worldview. That is to say he spoke in favour of radical Islamist ideology which included a generalised call for a jihad to set up an Islamic caliphate that covers the entire Muslim world.

That too would be free speech, and Mallah would have the right to air that view on the nation's public broadcaster.

So long as Zaky Mallah did not call for an immediate act of violence by those in actual possession of the means of murder against specific targets then, on grounds of free speech, even a call for jihad should be construed as permissible discourse.

Advocates of war and the use of offensive military firepower make arguments in the public sphere calling for the waging of warfare often indeed almost on a daily basis. Although one might strenuously object to these arguments, very few of us, including the most ardent pacifist, would argue that one cannot peacefully air a generalised argument calling for the waging of a war.

That applies no matter what type of war one is calling for; a war for democracy, a war for oil, a genocidal war, a war for God. The principle remains the same.

In 2005 the Howard government passed a number of sedition laws that restricted freedom of speech.

Andrew Lynch, Nicola McGarrity and Paul Williams in The Guardian wrote such laws"would be unthinkable, if not constitutionally impossible, in nations such as the US and Canada to restrict freedom of speech."