18 C

This week the president of Indonesia was forced to cancel a state visit to Australia because the Christian mayor of Jakarta made a remark that many Muslims thought showed disrespect for the Koran.  As a result, thousands marched through the streets and were met with police water cannons and tear gas.  It was an ugly riot.  Many were injured and one demonstrator died when tear gas brought on a stroke.

Australia has been mercifully free of eruptions of violence over offence taken at remarks made by a public figure.  We value the freedom of speech protection enshrined in our legal code and when there has been a reaction to some perceived insult it usually involves limited numbers of people and action that is easily contained.

That could change unless sanity prevails and we take action to make a change to the Racial Discrimination Act.   Section C of that act makes it an offence to "Offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group "on the basis of race or ethnicity.   Section D does contain several exceptions, but generally this act is unworkable.   Even the mildest form of criticism could be construed as an offence under this acts guidelines.

Already citizens with an axe to grind or those thin skinned zealots of personal rights have cases in court awaiting jurisdiction.  A number of Queensland University students were facing charges over matter they posted on Facebook.  If you can be hauled into court over sharing an opinion on social media that seems more like an invasion of personal privacy rather than an infringement on the rights of others.

It seems that the subtle humour of the talented cartoonists which grace our morning newspapers is under threat from this act.   One cartoon depicted a deadbeat Aboriginal man having his son handed back to him by a copper - and asking "Whats his name ?  Ït awaits determination by a court.

Freedom of speech is fast vanishing in many parts of the world - if it ever existed in some countries !  Repression can take many forms.  Tyrannical regimes jail journalists and close newspapers if they dislike the news they report.  One of the freedom here in Australia is the right of every citizen to respond to an opinion with which they disagree by writing to a newspaper or engaging with a radio or television commentator.   The moment our opinion is curtailed to exclude any possibility that it might "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate "another person then that opinion becomes worthless - and worst of all - it becomes a legal liability.

Just about any opinion on politics, religion or even one of the sporting codes is certain to have an opposite feeling by some other members of the public.  If neither party is able to legally offer that opinion then we have a form of sterility from which society can not progress.  It is from debate that new ideas emerge.

The fate of 18 C depends on a Senate enquiry which is examining the ramifications of making  changes to the act.   Because of the wide diversity of opinion held by the members of the Senate it is inevitable that discussing this subject will cause some to be offended by the views of others - and parliamentary debate usually contains many insults.  It is likely that those with a minority view may feel humiliated - and because of party politics it seems certain that lesser coalitions may be intimidated.   The only missing ingredient - is if someone introduces an element of race or ethnicity to the argument.

If nothing else we would all miss those jokes that start with "An Englishman, an Australian and an Irishman met in the pub and .........  " !