Interview on freedom of speech on John Safran
My recent post on human rights day drew some comments about the right to freedom of speech – something which is fundamental for a democracy. As with many rights, the debate is not so much about whether we should have such a right, but what does it mean in practice and what sorts of limits on that right are acceptable.
By coincidence, I will be on the ”Sunday Night Safran” program on JJJ radio sometime after 9pm tonight, being interviewed about freedom of speech. You can listen to it live through the web by clicking on this link (which will also show you how to find JJJ’s frequency in your area if you’d rather listen to it on the radio). If you’re busy at the time (or it’s already past Sudnay when you read this), you will also be able stream or podcast the program via this link for the next month or so.
I am not 100% sure, but I have the impression John Safran may have asked to interview me about this topic on the basis of things I’d done on this blog – in particular this piece where I indicated I didn’t support moves to have a Senate Committee Inquiry targeted specifically at the Exclusive Brethren, even though I strongly opposed many of the public positions they had been campaigning on. Some of the comments to my blog piece obviously disagreed with my position.
I think John Safran is interested in just how strong the commitment of our society (and our politicians) is freedom of speech, which is a good topic to explore. One of the tests in promoting the importance of rights is to stand up for a principle when it is unpopular or involves something you disagree with. I try to hold myself to that, although not always successfully.
It stuck in my own craw a bit to take a position which could be seen as ‘supporting’ the Brethren, who are guilty of terrible vilification of gays and lesbians and transgender people – something I’ve campaigned against for a long time – but I still couldn’t see how it was justified targeting them through a Senate Inquiry.
5 Comments, Comment or Ping
Louise
I’m very glad you’ve posted on this topic, Senator. I have been contacting SA politicians about the Equal Opportunity (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill due to be debated early next year.
I have expressed to them my concerns that such legislation would be a serious threat to true democracy.
For example, if I were to state in public that I believe that traditional marriage is the best basis for family life and therefore, society, I would – under this legislation – be vulnerable to prosecution for the “crime” of offending people.
A true democracy has to be able to cope with a wide range of viewpoints on any number of topics.
Other states already have similar legislation to the current bill being proposed in SA. I’m not sure what the situation in Queensland is, but I can only hope you’re taking democracy more seriously up there.
The problem with this type of legislation it that it produces citizens of differing status. One group of people are permitted to criticise their opponents, but it is illegal for their opponents to do likewise. This is problematic for any kinds of so-called “vilification” laws.
There’s no small amount of vilification in your comboxes here, for example! (Not that I blame you, Senator). Sometimes it’s directed towards members of my faith. But as hateful as others are, in fact, towards the Church, if they are not actually committing libel or real discrimination (as covered by the laws we already have) then I may choose to defend my Church or my co-religionists, I might even feel angry, but I’m not going to push to make such behaviour a crime.
In short, I believe a true democracy needs to be able to cope with people of opposing views and I’m not convinced that our society (previously fairly robust in this way) will continue to be a place where all people are free to justly criticise groups or stand up for what they believe in.
A democracy that favours one group of people over another is a sham. Another name for it is “totalitarianism.”
Dec 11th, 2006
Adele
We already have a democracy that favours some groups over others, Louise. For exmple, gay and lesbian people have fewer rights than many other people solely because they happen to fall in love with someone of the same gender.
It is true some people may make hateful comments about ‘the Church’. When the Church, which after all is a powerful and wealthy institution which is treated very favourably in a range of laws, stops making hateful comments about some groups of people, let alone stops engaging in crimes like covering up for sex offenders, I might feel a bit more sympathy for them.
By the way, there is a big difference between “offending people” and villification.
Dec 11th, 2006
Louise
We already have a democracy that favours some groups over others, Louise. For example, gay and lesbian people have fewer rights than many other people solely because they happen to fall in love with someone of the same gender.
It’s not hard to see how you have arrived at this conclusion and it’s not an unreasonable conclusion to make. But because an adequate refutation will take up too much space here and I don’t have the time I will restrict myself here to just saying that:
1. If our laws currently prevent gay and lesbian people from living together, and sharing property etc. then yes, those laws should in some way be changed to address these issues.
2. Merely “falling in love” is hardly an adequate reason to marry someone. There should be a bit more to it than that!
It is true some people may make hateful comments about ‘the Church’.
Any particular reason you used quotation marks here?
When the Church, which after all is a powerful and wealthy institution which is treated very favourably in a range of laws, stops making hateful comments about some groups of people, let alone stops engaging in crimes like covering up for sex offenders, I might feel a bit more sympathy for them.
Go on with you!!
1. Which laws? And might there be a sound reason for those laws, given that the Church usually does much of the State’s job for it? (A job the Church wouldn’t be able to do, if it didn’t have something resembling power and wealth).
2. Which “hateful” comments?
cont..
Dec 14th, 2006
Louise
Adele, your disgust at the appalling behaviour of those who did indeed cover up for sex offenders, is obviously perfectly justifiable.
But it doesn’t entitle anyone to personally attack practitioners of this religion, particularly since committing sex offences, or covering them up, is not a part of the religious dogma.
Interestingly enough, one of the Church’s dogmas is that we are all sinners and that this does not miraculously change once we are received into the Church. So that, in failing to live as they should, people who commit grave wrongs like these are just proving the Church’s point. Which should make you wonder what else the Church might be right about.
And I don’t ask for your sympathy, Adele, in fact I couldn’t care less, but you have to understand that when people attack the Church – or its members – unjustly, they are very wrong. And it is justice, not sympathy, that I’m interested in as far as the law is concerned.
By the way, there is a big difference between “offending people” and villification.
Really? I never knew. The problem is, of course, that the SA bill is worded in such a way that merely offending people could be seen as a crime. It’s open to that interpretation. So yes, there is a big difference between vilification and offending people, but where the law is unclear on that point, it’s a bit problematic. It’s also problematic that most people don’t seem to be able to draw the distinction either. People are very ready to label as “hate,” that which is often just a difference of opinion or world-view. And it’s pathetic. And undemocratic.
Dec 14th, 2006