In an ominous move the New South Wales Premier is considering strengthening the state's anti-discrimination laws to make it easier to gain convictions for " serious racial vilification ". Section 20 D of the Anti-Discrimination act provides penalties of $ 5,500, but of the twenty-seven complaints lodged since 1989, not one proceeded to prosecution. In each case, it was decided that the proof did not meet the standard necessary to convince a court.
It seems clear that this legislative review is aimed squarely at Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt. Alan Jones caused uproar when he made that famous " died of shame " remark about Julia Gillard's father. Many people though it was " inappropriate " and Jones was tried in the " court of public opinion " - and suffered penalties far in excess of any $ 5,500 fine.
Mercedes Benz chose to withdraw his cherished top of the model limousine and the radio station he part owned was forced to turn away millions of advertising dollars - and he grudgingly apologised for the comment. The fact that his audience increased says a lot about the freedom of speech issue.
Andrew Bolt was vilified for suggesting that many fair skinned people of Aboriginal heritage claimed their Aboriginality because of the advantage this now offered. It is a fact of life that in the distant past many hid the presence of any Aboriginal blood because it was considered a stigma. Quotas and special legislation to enhance Aboriginal people have reversed that situation. Surely we are not becoming so thin skinned that the truth has to be suppressed ?
In India, thousands took to the streets to protest the gang rape and murder of a young student woman. Here in Australia, the people of Melbourne took to the streets in protest when Jill Meagher was raped and murdered. Are we to see the stifling of comment from those who refer to such perpetrators as " scum " and " vermin " ?
Then there is the sexual oppression of little children by " men of the cloth ". For over a century it is only the unswerving action of public opinion that have dragged this odious reality into the public domain. The churches have ducked and dodged, hiding behind " confidentiality agreements " and shifting priests to new parishes - where they continued to offend. Many parishioners have put the good name of the church before the welfare of children to shut down enquiries to maintain silence. It is only the public comment of a courageous few that have kept this issue alive - and about to face a judicial enquiry.
The truth is not always palatable. It usually offends someone and we seem to live in an age when the system prefers to please everybody, but if we start to tamper with freedom of speech - we do it at our peril.
There is a remedy for injustice that is quite separate to the anti-discrimination laws. It is the right for any citizen who believes that he or she has been unjustly defamed to take the offender to court and seek both a public apology and financial compensation.
Tinkering with the anti-discrimination laws seems an end run to close down comment by commentators such as Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt. In the guise of protecting the thin skinned from fair comment, it closes off the right of the public to be advised of events that could be described as " in the public interest ".
We would be well advised to remember that creed that is essential to upholding the right of freedom of speech - which we hold so dear.
" All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing ! "
No comments:
Post a Comment