Older Posts

St George poised to slay the dragon of thought-suppression

This may be the most important announcement in the election campaign: PM-in-waiting Tony Abbott has declared today that he and Senator George Brandis are committed “to roll back Labor’s laws that limit free speech on the basis of not ‘giving offence’, defend religious freedom and reform the Australian Human Rights Commission.”

Senator Brandis is the man for this job. I only hope he will not just inflict a flesh wound on this greens-left dragon but will slay it good and proper. I know he will roll back the laws, but rolling back a dragon and tickling its belly is not good enough.

My understanding of his plans are based on our discussion when he seconded my motion to the LNP convention in 2011. I had recently done battle with a vexatious complainant at the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Commission and prevailed, and my motion was to repeal or amend the relevant section of Queensland’s anti-vilification laws “to prevent it being misused to suppress free argument on matters of public importance”.

My preference would be to abolish these oppressive laws; to only amend them might be tokenistic and ineffective. If we amend those laws which make it an offense to ‘offend, vilify, humiliate’ to a form where it is only an offense to ‘vilify and humiliate’ on some matter then, with respect, we have achieved nothing to lift the intimidation on free public argument. If somebody wants to take offense at some idea they consider unacceptable they will take you to court just as readily by claiming to feel “humiliated / vilified” as they will for feeling “offended”.

UPDATE

UQ Law Professor James Allan agrees: listen to him here calling for full repeal, not half-baked amendment.

Hey ho… We can only wait and hope that the conservatives, for once, undo the damage of the left to the fullest extent, and don’t just tinker. As Mark Steyn has pointed out, free speech is the freedom by which we argue for all our other freedoms. It is not a left-right thing; it is a free-unfree thing.

Still, this article in today’s Australian gives the greatest hope we have had for the restoration of a robust and genuinely free public square:

Signalling his belief that the current law is untenable, Mr Abbott said: “Any suggestion you can have free speech as long as it doesn’t hurt people’s feelings is ridiculous. If we are going to be a robust democracy, if we are going to be a strong civil society, if we are going to maintain that great spirit of inquiry, which is the spark that has made our civilisation so strong, then we’ve got to allow people to say things that are unsayable in polite company.
“We’ve got to allow people to think things that are unthinkable in polite company and take their chances in open debate.”

Mr Abbott’s stance on championing the right of free speech also involves support for the position of Senator Brandis that the Human Rights Commission Act may need to be amended to guarantee reform in its outlook and its promotion of traditional democratic freedoms.

The Abbott-Brandis position is certain to provoke a firestorm of opposition from the Labor Party and the Greens, given their deep attachment to cultural and institutional change through the application of anti-discrimination law.

Senator Brandis has attacked the Human Rights Commission as “an anti-discrimination commission” with little attachment to classical human rights.

Asked by The Australian if he had the tenacity to force through these reforms, Senator Brandis said: “I was born for it.”

When Mr Abbott was questioned about the extent of his commitment to this agenda, he said: “I think I can say I have helped to encourage George in that direction.”

Mr Abbott’s link between speech and thought is the pivotal point. This goes to the heart of the progressive agenda that he opposes – by limiting what people can say, the purpose is to limit what people think, hence the idea of “thought crime”.

In a speech last week to the Centre for Independent Studies, Senator Brandis said the debasement of the human rights project lay in the creation of the right to “equal concern and respect”. This invested a “privileged status” for those claiming to be victims. Senator Brandis said it led directly to the unacceptable doctrine that underpinned Labor’s law: “that a person’s freedom to express an opinion will always yield to another person’s right not to be offended”.

This is the idea Mr Abbott and Senator Brandis have slated for statutory extinguishment. Mr Abbott made it clear he was not defending the article in question written by Bolt, columnist for News Corp Australia, publisher of The Australian. He said the policy was to amend section 18 (c) of the Racial Discrimination Act “in its current form”. “I’m not encouraging people to be rude,” he said. “I’m not encouraging people to be offensive. People may suffer social ostracism, they may deserve to suffer social ostracism. But if someone has got something they really want to say then, subject to the ordinary laws of defamation, they should be able to say it.”

Asked about the campaign to use anti-discrimination law to limit religious freedom and the ability of religious hospitals, charities and schools to uphold their own values, Mr Abbott said: “We think religious organisations ought to be able to maintain their ethos.”

This would put an Abbott government into direct conflict with the human rights lobby with its mission of extending anti-discrimination law to force religious institutions into embracing values contrary to their faiths. Mr Abbott said the Coalition had no commitment to repeal the removal of protection for religious providers of aged care facilities to act in accordance with their beliefs.

Senator Brandis said the tragedy of the human rights debate was that the Left had come to see freedom of speech as an obstacle to its conception of human rights. This is the challenge he faces in trying to reform the Australian Human Rights Commission. He proposes to create a new office of freedom commissioner within the Human Rights Commission to advance the cause of traditional rights such as free speech. He said he was prepared to change the act to ensure the commission was effectively re-directed. Mr Abbott said he supported the Brandis agenda

Comments are closed.

Older Articles
Click HERE for more articles from ~ 1995...
Some Videos
STEM CELLS & EMBRYOS: ABC LATELINE AUGUST 2002 SURROGACY: KERRI-ANNE SHOW JANUARY 2011 SBS INSIGHT ON GAY MARRIAGE 2013 (see post Aug 15 2013) EUTHANASIA & THE 'DUTY TO DIE', 2014 THE HARMS OF HOMOSEXUAL 'MARRIAGE', 2014 ABORTION - 'the silent innocence of the unborn', 2014 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: SYDNEY UNI 2012 (start 2min20) SURROGACY BILL QLD JANUARY 2010
Tweets!