(Image: Private Media)

Leslie Cannold has had enough of being even-handed and presenting Both Sides Now. Now she’s cutting to the chase: what’s the right way to go? In Everyday Dilemmas, Dr Cannold brings her ethical training to your problems. Send your questions to letters@crikey.com.au with “Dear Leslie” in the subject line. She might even reply…

Dear Leslie,

Gallows being carried by Melbourne protesters in which an inflatable Premier was hung. Is this the free speech my father went to war to protect?

Carlton Old-Timer

Dear Old Timer,

The short answer to your question is “yes”. Effigy burning and hanging is an old and widespread practice, including in modern democracies. Unlike direct incitements to violence, which are included in the suite of lawful limits on free speech in a democracy, the symbolic abuse of a political enemy to ridicule and dishonour them — while on the outer edge of acceptable speech — has not been seen to cross the line.

Having said that, the rise of violent anti-democratic protest — including a direct attack on the US Capitol intended to disrupt the peaceful transition of power — should give pause to every protest and political leader in the country. In other words, if there was ever a time to vigorously police the boundaries between legitimate free speech and speech that crosses the line because it incites violence, that time is now.

Which was why I was pleased to see Liberal Upper House leader David Davis, an opponent of the government’s new pandemic law, lash his critique to a plea for protesters to remain peaceful. “I would encourage Victorians to fight on every level against [this] terrible pandemic bill … but they should make their views known in a peaceful and calm and sensible way.” Opposition Leader Matthew Guy also deserves praise for reinforcing proper democratic practice when he urged Victorians to take their frustrations out “at the ballot box.”

Dear Leslie,

We had friends drop by this weekend for a coffee that turned into dinner. During the meal, we got into a discussion about the morality of friends who’d refused vaccination. I said I found it selfish, but our friends said you had to consider the whole person before making that judgement. After all, they forgave us for eating meat.

It was almost an aside, but it still felt like a low blow. They know the health reasons behind our diet. But it’s been bothering me. I don’t know why.

Bewildered in Oakleigh

Dear Bewildered,

Because you were side swiped! Nothing like realising you’re being insulted — or at least pricked — ten minutes after it’s happened. If someone’s going to have a crack, they should at least give you a chance to respond.

You were also probably shocked to learn that these friends, and perhaps others in your social circle, are judging you. It’s confronting to be called selfish. Especially when those applying the label have no idea what you’ve been through and the reasons behind your choice. Even worse when, as in your case, you were unaware times had changed so much that what were once private culinary decisions now leave you exposed to social condemnation.

What now? Do you stand behind your judgment of others as selfish because they won’t get vaxxed? If so, you might need to take the negative judgment about your character based on your eating habits on the chin.

Or, having found such judgement superficial and unfair — one decision does not a selfish person make — do you think your condemnation of the unvaxxed as selfish might have been too hasty?

Consistency is a hallmark of morality. I wish you luck in getting your perspectives re-aligned.

Send your dilemmas to letters@crikey.com.au with “Dear Leslie” in the subject line and you could get a reply from Dr Cannold in this column. We reserve the right to edit letters for length and clarity.