Some Links, 10/5/2025

Helen Dale on hate speech laws in Australia; Frederick Hess on academic research; Ben Glasner on labor market policy; Damon Perry on Muslim extremism in the UK

Helen Dale writes,

it’s difficult to convey to outsiders the unusual operation of Australian hate speech laws, the extraordinary heat around their periodic litigation in the courts, and the controversy surrounding attempts to have them repealed.

…An Australian court was thus obliged to make a ruling on the legitimacy or otherwise of bits of Islamic scripture as explicated by a Muslim cleric. Both parties—Wertheim for the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and Haddad for the Al Madina Dawah Centre—called expert religious witnesses. ..

think of the Haddad ruling as an Australian court holding that bits of Islam—at least the Muslim Brotherhood end of the religion—are not WORIADS, the well-known Forstater v CGD Europe formulation: not worthy of respect in a democratic society.

…If another religion sought an exemption for racist speech as Haddad did for Islam, 18C would stand athwart it and yell STOP while preventing it from raising section 116 of the Constitution as a shield.

The way it looks to me, if you’re for free speech then you cannot make an exception regarding hate speech. The government should leave Harvard antisemites alone, except for when they engage in physical intimidation. The government should leave anti-conservatives alone, except for when they discriminate against conservatives in hiring (as universities clearly do).

When X says something that offends Y, it is up to Harvard, as a private entity, to pick a side. You can choose either to stand up for free speech or stand up against hate speech. If Harvard takes sides with Y except when Y is Jewish, that is Harvard’s prerogative. Just don’t wrap yourself in a free speech flag if that is how you roll.

Fr,ederick Hess writes,

I’m left wondering how many research studies are just a playground for a privileged caste of credentialed scribblers to amuse themselves and build comfortable careers, all with the aid of hefty public subsidies. Scholars certainly don’t think so. They tell us research is a dynamic endeavor and we have to trust that these explorations are how we surface unexpected, important truths. But should we actually buy that? I’m inclined to think that William Proxmire had a point with his “Golden Fleece” awards, and that we’re way overdue for a serious conversation about the kinds of research that merit public support.

He gives examples. It turns out that Steven Pinker’s latest book includes a lot of reporting on research conducted by Pinker and his colleagues. I am concerned that the studies resemble “behavioral economics” experiments that tend to have questionable value.

Ben Glasner writes,

Abundance-minded policymakers should remove the bottlenecks that prevent labor from flowing to where it is most productive and needed, just as we would for housing, infrastructure, or energy.

He goes on to propose things like reforming occupational licensing, reducing benefit cliffs to lower the implicit marginal tax rate on the working class, and expanding legal immigration of high-skilled workers.

When I read his essay, it struck me as a throwback to old-fashioned, center-left technocratic economics. I find it attractive, considering the alternatives coming from the Mamdani Dems on the one hand and Trump GOP on the other. I just don’t think that there is a political lane in either party for economists to run in.

Damon Perry writes,

What we are facing, in other words, is a multi-pronged assault on our people, institutions, cultural traditions, collective memory and identity, and even our scientific method and relationship to knowledge.

Collectively, these threats constitute what I call ‘Islamist subversion’ —an organised but decentralised programme of spreading ideas and values in education, politics, law, media, prisons, charities, and within Muslim communities themselves, which both transform and weaken Western nations from below.

This is in the wake of the Yom Kippur synagogue attack in the UK. Perry has some proposals to try to contain the threat. But my guess is that Britain’s policy will continue to be appeasement, which will fail as badly as it did in the 1930s.

substacks referenced above: @

11 ways to shut down Islamism

@

Abundance: the Missing Piece