Image - www.smh.com.au

George Brandis, Attorney General, Image – www.smh.com.au

These are the comments of a variety of people on issues such as Charlie Hebdo, Section 18c Amendments and Free speech in Australia:

“GEORGE BRANDIS, ATTORNEY-GENERAL (March, 2014): Well, Mr President, people do have a right to be bigots, you know. In a free country, people do have rights to say things that other people find offensive or insulting or bigoted.

Amanda Vanstone: The idea of saying “You shouldn’t be allowed to say that because it offends me” is just poppycock. The speaker is demanding the right to censor what you can say for no other reason than he or she feels upset. It is just ridiculous. It is ridiculous on a personal level and on a group level.

However, if you are really serious about supporting free speech you would also be prepared to demonstrate against extremist Muslim violence and to support government action to bring it to heel. Let’s wait and see. You can’t have it both ways. You cannot be in favour of free speech and resolutely unwilling to defend it. You just look stupid. Oh, and a bit two-faced.

Tim Wilson: Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson has now backed his call, saying the global support for Charlie Hebdo showed that offend and insult should be removed from the Act.

Speaking on ABC Radio on Tuesday, Mr Wilson said depictions of the Prophet Mohammed may not be banned due to the legislation’s focus on race, but other cartoons would result in regular legal challenges.

“Charlie Hebdo and the events in Paris have clearly demonstrated around the world that people think people should have the freedom to offend and insult,” he said”.

In addition George Brandis has written extensively (as hereunder) on the issue particularly in relation to the Andrew Bolt decision.

“First, it is clear that freedom of political expression in Australia is subject to a significant new constraint, which had not existed before. It is in the nature of political argument that it is commonly offensive to those who have the opposite view.

Like most Australians, I find the flagrant dishonesty of the carbon tax offensive. I find the shameless amorality of the Malaysia Solution offensive, just as I am offended by the hypocrisy of moral posturing by a government that is prepared to trash the most elementary human rights standards.

By making the reasonable likelihood of causing offence or insult the test of unacceptable behaviour, in any political context, section 18C is a grotesque limitation on ordinary political discourse. While some have pointed out the analogy with the limitations on free speech in the defamation laws, the threshold at which speech may be unlawful because it is defamatory is much higher: the traditional formula is that it must be likely to bring the victim into “hatred, ridicule or contempt”. There is all the difference in the world between that standard and making unlawful speech merely because it causes offence.

Second, it is wrong and, indeed, dangerous to regard the question as one of balancing of interests. In a liberal society, freedom of speech and expression — and their corollary, freedom of the press — are not interests to be weighed in the scale but fundamental rights, without which individual liberty cannot exist and democratic governance cannot work. It is true to say that they are not absolutes, as defamation law, and laws criminalising sedition or incitement of violence demonstrate. But English law has always defended freedom of speech jealously and read those necessary limitations narrowly. It is for this reason, for instance, that traditionally, the courts would not issue an injunction to restrain a threatened defamation. The legal limitations on freedom of speech and of the press are necessitous exceptions to a strongly defended general rule, not a counterweight.

Third, restrictions on freedom of political discourse inevitably lead to restrictions on political opinion itself. There is very little distance between speech crime and what George Orwell called thought crime. What section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act seeks to do, by prohibiting the expression of political views that mainstream society finds unattractive and objectionable, is to penalise the holding of those views at all.

Is it really the business of government to be telling people what they may or may not think? I suppose the whole point of the political correctness movement is that the answer to that question is yes.”

Right from the very start of this whole issue I have been adamant that there are limits to free speech. Where the speech is used to offend someone or some group then that speech should not be permitted. Why is this raising its head now as an issue?

For those of you who aren’t aware of it, the following tweets were sent out by Scott McIntyre, an SBS Football commentator:

“He began his tirade about 5pm yesterday, calling Australia’s involvement in the World Wars an “imperialist invasion of a foreign nation”.

Later tweets read: “Wonder if the poorly-read, largely white, nationalist drinkers and gamblers pause today to consider the horror that all mankind suffered.”

“Remembering the summary execution, widespread rape and theft committed by these ‘brave’ Anzacs in Egypt, Palestine and Japan,” said another post.

“Not forgetting that the largest single-day terrorist attacks in history were committed by this nation & their allies in Hiroshima & Nagasaki.””

“Not forgetting that the largest single-day terrorist attacks in history were committed by this nation & their allies in Hiroshima & Nagasaki.””

Here’s the conundrum. If there is a “right to be bigots” and there is a need to preserve the freedom of speech, where does that put us in regard to Mr McIntyre? What has happened to date is that he has been sacked by SBS. No doubt this will play out over the next few days with the possibility of unfair dismissal claims and the like resulting. But it does make the arguments relating to free speech that have been advanced above very, very interesting. So far Tim Wilson has not commented about the issue. Nor has Brandis. I await their comments with interest.