The Tyranny of Virtue

There was a time when virtues like tolerance, charity and humility were regarded as the glue that held civil society together. They were personal virtues — qualities individuals tried to live by in their dealings with others.

Today those same virtues have been weaponised.

Instead of guiding behaviour, they are increasingly used as a bludgeon to silence debate.

Disagree with a fashionable idea and you are no longer merely wrong — you are guilty of a micro-aggression, committing violence, or revealing yourself as racist, sexist, transphobic, or worse. The aim is not to persuade. The aim is to shut you up.

The message is clear: speak carefully, or do not speak at all.

The Strange Moral Landscape

Look around and ask yourself what this culture of enforced virtue has created.

We now inhabit a strange moral landscape.

We are told that racism is everywhere — yet somehow it only flows in one direction. Entire populations are casually labelled “privileged oppressors”, while others are automatically granted moral authority based solely on identity.

“Black Lives Matter” is treated as an unquestionable slogan.
But say “White Lives Matter” and you are immediately accused of white supremacy.

Biological reality itself is now treated as controversial.
To say that sex is determined by biology rather than personal declaration is no longer a statement of fact but an act of transphobia worthy of cancellation.

Antisemitism, supposedly one of the great historical evils, is now tolerated — even excused — if it is wrapped in the language of supporting “victims” of a distant conflict. Jewish citizens thousands of kilometres from any battlefield become targets of protests and harassment.

In Australia, indigenous disadvantage is real and deserves serious attention. Yet we are told the solution is permanent racial preference — compensation for wrongs committed generations ago by people long dead, paid for by taxpayers who had nothing to do with those injustices.

Meanwhile a declared “climate emergency” is used to justify policies that damage economies and landscapes alike. In countries whose emissions barely register on the global scale, governments pursue expensive programs that amount largely to economic self-harm, while major emitters continue expanding fossil fuel use.

None of these debates are allowed to unfold honestly.

Because the moment someone questions the narrative, the accusations begin.

The Death of Open Discourse

This is the real problem.

A healthy society survives bad ideas through open debate. Ideas are tested, challenged, refined or rejected in the marketplace of discussion.

But when disagreement is framed as moral failure — or even violence — discussion stops.

Fear replaces curiosity.

Self-censorship becomes the norm.

And bad ideas, shielded from scrutiny by moral intimidation, begin to flourish.

Ironically, the new social justice movement that claims to champion tolerance has become one of the least tolerant forces in modern culture. It demands ideological conformity and punishes dissent.

Virtue Without Freedom Is Not Virtue

Virtue that must be enforced is not virtue at all.

Tolerance cannot exist if only one side is permitted to speak.

Charity cannot exist if it is extracted through moral intimidation.

Humility certainly cannot exist in a culture that assumes its moral superiority over anyone who disagrees.

Free speech is not a luxury. It is the immune system of democracy. Without it, societies lose their ability to correct themselves.

Time to Be Politically Incorrect Again

Perhaps it is time for ordinary citizens to rediscover a forgotten courage.

The courage to question.

The courage to speak plainly.

The courage to refuse the moral bullying of those who claim to speak in the name of virtue while silencing everyone else.

Sometimes the most necessary act of civic responsibility is simply to call a spade a spade.

Language matters.

Truth matters.

And the freedom to say what we believe — even when it offends someone — matters most of all.

Adelaide Writers' Festival Cancels Itself

Once again, cancel culture has devoured one of its own — and this time, I’m not shedding a tear.

The Adelaide Writers’ Festival, long a comfortable home for fashionable left-wing causes and anti-Israel rhetoric, has imploded in spectacular fashion. What began as a belated attempt at moral clarity ended with mass walk-outs, the resignation of its director, and the cancellation of the entire event. It would be hard to script a better example of progressive self-destruction.

The controversy centred on Dr Randa Abdel-Fattah, a long-time anti-Israel activist who had been scheduled as a featured speaker. Following the Bondi massacre — in which 15 Jews were murdered in an Islamist terror attack — festival organisers quietly removed her from the program, citing “cultural sensitivity concerns.”

Those concerns were hardly imaginary.

As HonestReporting documented in a recent presentation, Abdel-Fattah had mocked Israelis fleeing the Nova music festival on October 7 while Hamas terrorists were still rampaging through southern Israel. The following day she made an image of Hamas paraglider terrorists her social-media cover photo. More recently, she was filmed teaching Australian schoolchildren to chant “Israel is a terrorist state” and “From the river to the sea.”

Let’s be clear: that isn’t education. It’s ideological indoctrination and the normalisation of hate.

These were more than sufficient reasons to conclude that she had no place on a public literary platform, particularly only weeks after Australian Jews were massacred on their own soil. Yet the moment she was removed, a predictable backlash erupted.

Other writers rushed to her defence. Zionists were blamed. “Cancel culture” was invoked. The removal of a Hamas apologist was framed as censorship rather than basic moral hygiene. Incredibly, the protesters portrayed her as the victim — not the Jewish community that had just buried its dead.

The protest escalated into a boycott by participating writers. Under mounting political pressure — including from South Australia’s Labor Premier — the festival director folded. The result? A mass walk-out, her resignation, and the cancellation of the entire festival.

And then came the final insult: the organisers rescinded their original statement and announced that Abdel-Fattah would be reinvited for next year’s festival.

You couldn’t make this up.

This was never about “cultural sensitivity.” It was about whether an institution funded by the public should platform someone who openly glorifies terrorists, mocks massacre victims, and teaches children to chant genocidal slogans. The real question is not why she was removed — it’s why the Adelaide Writers’ Festival ever thought she belonged there in the first place.

For years, the festival had no problem hosting anti-Israel speakers. It even “uninvited” a pro-Israel speaker in the past after pressure from activists. So when, for once, it showed the faintest flicker of moral awareness, its own ideological tribe turned on it.

The result is poetic justice.

Either you believe in open dialogue and pluralism — or you don’t. Either all opinions are allowed — or only the approved ones. The Adelaide Writers’ Festival tried to straddle both worlds. In the end, it chose none.

Good riddance.

If this is what passes for “literary culture” in 2026 Australia — censoring one side, platforming terror apologists, and collapsing into hysterics the moment minimal standards are applied — then perhaps the country is better off without it.

I will include the HonestReporting video below this post. It’s worth watching. It documents, in grim detail, how a supposedly enlightened cultural institution managed to disgrace itself in record time.

Sometimes cancel culture doesn’t just cancel speakers.

Sometimes it cancels itself.

https://youtu.be/fwzrJs3dTvc?si=Ya-8pS7iP4lmmRKR

Burqas, Bans and the Ban on Debate

Pauline Hanson walked into the Senate wearing a burqa — and was promptly banned from the chamber.

Fine. Agree or disagree with her stunt, that’s politics. But what happened next says far more about Australia in 2025 than it does about Hanson.

Because apparently, we’re now at the point where the issue itself can’t even be discussed.

Let me be clear: my concern here isn’t whether the burqa should be banned (though I personally think it should).
My concern is that the debate is being banned.

Avi Yemini captured the moment perfectly: outside the political media bubble, most people weren’t outraged by Hanson — they were laughing at the senators clutching their pearls. These are the same politicians who routinely use parliament as a stage for their own divisive props and lectures. Yet the moment they get a taste of their own medicine, suddenly they cry “unconstitutional!” and demand silence.

Unconstitutional?
For wearing a burqa?
If anything, the implied right to political communication protects exactly this kind of protest. The argument was so backwards it almost sounded like they were the ones wanting the burqa banned.

And here lies the hypocrisy:
The Senate had just shut down Hanson’s bill — the very bill that would have made her stunt illegal. In other words, they want the right to use parliament for their own theatrics, but they want to block others from making their point in the same way.

This isn’t about respect.
It isn’t about religion.
It isn’t even about Pauline Hanson.

It’s about the slow creep of cancel culture into the halls of parliament — a growing belief that certain topics simply cannot be discussed because the public might think the “wrong” thing if they’re allowed to hear the arguments.

A mature democracy debates ideas.
A fragile one bans them.

And judging by this episode, we’re heading in the wrong direction.

Here is Avi Yemini's take.