The Left’s failure to recognise that the proposed amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act are a victory for free speech is a slight against those who usually find themselves on the ‘right’ side of the political divide.
Of the many millions of words ever written about free speech these may well be the most important:
Such prejudice, or oversight, when it occurs, is altogether an evil; but it is one from which we cannot hope to be always exempt, and must be regarded as the price paid for an inestimable good.
They were penned in 1859 by John Stuart Mill in his essay On Liberty and remain the only starting point for any real discussion on freedom of speech. Governments have long tried to narrow the scope – many successfully – but always at a great cost to democracy.
Whether they act with the best intentions or the worst is irrelevant; any curtailment of this freedom is a regressive assault on the most important principle that underpins our political system. ‘Political correctness’ and the fear of causing offence – too often spoken about as if they have any worth at all – gazump the absolutism with which free speech ought to be understood and practiced.
Only when free speech becomes an incitement to commit violence should authorities take action. So, here’s the sticking point for many people: Should individuals or groups be then able to preach racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism and sexism? The one-word answer is ‘yes’; the qualifier is, it’s ‘the price paid for an inestimable good.’
The inherent problems with legislating against free speech are determining what is inadmissible and then finding someone with the authority to make that decision. For it’s too easily forgotten that any limit on free speech is not just an attack on those making the remarks, but also on those who want to read or listen to them. It’s this enlightenment that those championing the curtailment of free speech wish to deny themselves. If you’ll allow me to bastardise one of the most important essay on libertarianism ever written to a one sentence precise, I would say that this is the main thrust of John Milton’s 1644 essay Areopagitia. Well, that’s not a responsibility I want to delegate. There is no one living, or that has ever lived, who has that kind of authority to make that decision on my behalf.
In other words, the defence of one opinion, no matter how vile or bigoted, is the defence of them all.
The great modern exemplar of this is Aryeh Neier who, as executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), supported the neo-Nazi National Socialist Party of America’s right to march through Skokie, Illinois, where many Jews and Holocaust survivors lived. It was an incredibly brave position to take, and one the Left would do well to keep in mind when discussing (not that the idea of a proper discussion has even been entertained) the proposed amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.
Supporting the amendments, while also acknowledging that Australian society does have an endemic problem with racism are not mutually exclusive. Racism is still a pervasive feature of our culture and our political leaders are all too willing to exploit this for political gain; as is evidenced by the subhuman way we treat some of the most vulnerable people on this planet, who flee to our country in an effort to escape death and persecution.
But the current legislation, as well as being fundamentally undemocratic, does nothing to address the problem of racism in Australia; in fact, it does nothing to provide any clarity of what constitutes racism and a racist. The ABC/Andrew Bolt sideshow would be laughable, but for the fact that it’s attracted so much ‘genuine’ commentary. The court ruling seems to be clear on this fact; he was found guilty under section 18C go the legislation. Does that not mean that he, in the eyes of the law, is a racist? Why then is he owed an apology? Wasn’t Marcia Langton just expressing the courts verdict?
At a great cost to public debate, the Left has almost universally fallen back on these cliché slurs of racism against the Abbott government and its supporters, which undermine any discussion on the issue and reveal that many have simply failed to grok what’s at stake.
As vertiginous as the prospect of finding oneself in the same camp as the likes of Tony Abbott and Andrew Bolt may seem, it should not be the thing that guides the Left’s thinking. A criticism so often levelled at the Left – ‘I know what you’re against, but what so you stand for?’ – seems to stick in this instance. Rather than taking the progressive line they Left has been reactionary.
But nor should the Left let Tony Abbott get away with presenting himself as a champion of libertarianism; let’s not forget, he thinks the State should have the right to intervene and tell women how they should handle matters pertaining to birth control.
It’s easy to defend free speech when people are saying things you agree with; the true test comes when people say things that you not only disagree with, but that you find morally reprehensible. Unfortunately the Left’s failed this test.