|
|||||
Report of the Parliamentary Free Speech InquiryHi , As you would be aware the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights has delivered its report on Freedom of Speech in Australia. This was in effect an investigation into Sections 18C and 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act. Having read its report (PDF 5MB), I wonder what part of Human Rights any of its members actually understands. While all the members obviously had different views on the existence and content of these sections, not one of them had the actual courage to produce a minority report recommending substantial amendment, or abolition, of these two sections. We made a submission to this inquiry, and I gave evidence before it. You can read our submission here, and read a transcript of my evidence here. There is no justification for retaining 18C and 18D. In the first place these sections are not about racial discrimination at all – that is a furphy. They are about censorship. In none of the recent high profile cases that have come before the commission has there been any issue of racial discrimination. Andrew Bolt was convicted not for saying that Aborigines didn't deserve scholarships, but because he alleged some privileged Aborigines were abusing a system meant to help Aborigines who lacked privilege. Bill Leak's cartoon drew attention to the dysfunction that we know exists in aboriginal communities. It was an equal opportunity cartoon as it featured both an aboriginal "dead beat dad" and an aboriginal policeman doing some ad hoc social work in his community and returning an offender to his home. This is not discrimination. Likewise there was no element of discrimination in the case of the QUT students, unless it was against the students themselves, in which case it would have been by the university. What the act does is inhibit legitimate discussion. We value free speech highly in this society, and the freedom to be rough and blunt in speech with each other is one of the secrets of our success. Second, the act does not work, even as a tool of suppression. It was put to me by the deputy chair of the committee, Trevor Perrett, that if these sections were to be repealed then the flood gates would be opened to racial abuse. I disagreed for a number of reasons. Australia is not a racist country. On data collected from the World Values Survey we are amongst the least racist countries on the planet. The claim that there is a wave of racial abuse being held in check by these sections is unlikely, and an insult to Mr Perrett's constituents. Furthermore, two recent surveys, one conducted by the Scanlon Foundation, and another by Reconciliation Australia, both document an increase in the incidence of racism over the last few years (minor though racism is in this country). So, whatever the purpose of the sections, they are not achieving them. When we ask why, the answer may well be that they actually aid and abet community discord by creating in-groups, who have access to legislation like this, and out-groups, who don't. The evidence that we have from social psychology is that this is likely to increase, rather than decrease, friction. The answer, of course, is to treat all people equally, and as individuals, rather than members of groups. Insofar as there are legitimate curbs on free speech, these are already dealt with in defamation law, which is accessible to anyone in the country, no matter what group they belong to. And incitement of violence against any person is outlawed under criminal law. It is highly likely that one reason for an increase in incidences of racism is the prominence that legislation like this has had. Rather than educating people to be tolerant, it educates them that some people have access to rights other people don't. These sections also entrench the victim culture which is so destructive of national and individual resilience. They encourage people to take offence, and to seek compensation for it. Unfortunately it appears our submission was dismissed. But that doesn't mean it can be ignored. If you feel strongly about this issue, and I know many of you do, then make sure you contact your local federal MP or senator, and tell them so. Please circulate the link to our submission to them, if you agree with it, and let them know what you think. If you are a party insider and sit on a pre-selection council, let your local member know this will be a factor you weigh next time they come looking to you for a chance at another term in parliament. We are an organisation that supports racial tolerance. We also support freedom of thought, speech, conscience and religion. Sometimes rights can clash. In this case the cause of racial tolerance, and free speech, will be furthered by removing these sections from the act. If you like what we are doing please either join (click here) or donate (click here). We need your support. Regards
Graham Young 
|
||
|
|||||
 |