Provide an evaluation of the argument below. Is this a good argument? If so, why? If not, why not? Your response to this question should be written as a short essay (without references), and you may draw on any of the concepts we have learned so far in the course. Aim for 250 words in length (+/- 10%).
For this question you are not being asked to submit a logical outline, but it may help you to make one for yourself before beginning to write. Answers will be evaluated on clarity, accuracy, comprehensiveness (i.e. the amount of concepts from the course that you manage to put to good use), originality, and whether you give good reasons for your claims. (40 marks)
“Let Milo Yiannopoulos Into the Country” (Adapted from an opinion piece by ‘Jack the Insider’, The Australian, 8/4/2019).
I wish there was a better character around than Milo Yiannopoulos whose rights to free expression I could defend. But that’s the way it works. It’s often those who hold views we despise that we need to go to bat for.
I say let him in.
Pauline Hanson claims both Yiannopoulos and former leader of the English Defence League, Tommy Robinson, should be allowed into the country and has written to Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, David Coleman urging a rethink so that both men can tote their wares in Australia in the name of free speech.
Free speech has its limits. Immigration even more so. All non-citizens entering Australia must meet the character requirements set out in the Migration Act. Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, is a convicted criminal. On that basis alone, he would not be welcome here. Robinson’s criminal record includes convictions for violent crime, assault police, financial and immigration frauds, drug possession, public order offences, and contempt of court. That’s quite the rap sheet. Robinson has served three separate terms of imprisonment. He was not granted a visa to visit the United States late last year, which may or may not be due to the fact he has been convicted of entering the US with a false passport. […]
Robinson’s conduct is precisely the sort of behaviour that is not wanted in Australia. How Hanson can argue that Robinson should be given a platform in Australia on this basis defies human understanding. He fails the character test for entry to this country by every single measure.
But Milo Yiannopoulos has no criminal background and the show-cause letter he was sent by DICMA is based on a string of unpaid bills he generated in his last tour in 2017, including a reported figure of $50,000 owed to Victoria Police, and violence caused by third parties
outside some of the events he spoke at. He has not been denied a visa as yet. He has 28 days to provide Australian immigration authorities with grounds for his admission into this country.
If he promises to behave himself, I can see no reason why he shouldn’t come to Australia. Or else we will become a country of overly sensitive ‘snowflakes’.
The bigger question is why some Australians on the right would want to part with their hardearned (tickets can run to $1000) to see his, shall we say, performative version of politics when the rest of the world has moved on. The last I heard of Yiannopoulos he was flogging Alex Jones’s liver supplements on Info-Wars.