Multiculturalism is Incompatible with John Stuart Mill-Style Free Speech and Classical Liberalism! By James Reed

My argument begins with an article from The Spectator Australia titled "Did Multiculturalism Cost Australia Free Speech?" published on March 18, 2025, by Gabriël A. Moens AM.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2025/03/did-multiculturalism-cost-australia-free-speech/

https://www.amren.com/news/2025/03/did-multiculturalism-cost-australia-free-speech/

The piece centres on a statement from NSW Labor Premier Chris Minns, who suggested that Australia's free speech laws are less robust than those in the United States because they must be tempered to "hold together a multicultural community and have people live in peace." Minns' comment was made in the context of defending new hate speech laws rushed through NSW Parliament in late 2024, spurred by a fabricated incident later exposed as a hoax. Moens critiques this as an admission that multiculturalism demands curbs on liberty, specifically free speech, to maintain social harmony—an idea he finds antithetical to liberal principles. This sets the stage for examining whether multiculturalism, as practiced in modern Australia, clashes with the classical liberalism of John Stuart Mill, who saw free speech as the bedrock of individual liberty and societal progress.

John Stuart Mill's Free Speech and Classical Liberalism

John Stuart Mill, in his seminal work On Liberty (1859), argued that free speech is essential to a free society. For Mill, the unfettered exchange of ideas—even those deemed offensive or false—drives truth forward through debate and scrutiny. He famously wrote, "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person was of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." Mill's liberalism prioritises individual autonomy, reason, and the pursuit of truth over collective comfort or enforced consensus. Classical liberalism, in this vein, holds that the state's role is to protect individual rights, not to mediate social cohesion by restricting them. Any limitation on speech, Mill argued, must be narrowly justified (e.g., direct incitement to violence), not broadly imposed to appease diverse groups.

The Multiculturalism Premise

Multiculturalism, as a policy and ideology in Australia, promotes the coexistence of diverse cultural identities within a shared national framework. Since the 1970s, it has been celebrated as a strength, with leaders like Malcolm Turnbull calling Australia "the most successful multicultural country in the world." Yet, as Moens notes, Minns' stance implies that this diversity requires trade-offs—specifically, that free speech must be sacrificed to prevent cultural friction. This view aligns with practical realities: Australia's Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Section 18C) and recent NSW hate speech laws, penalise speech deemed to "offend, insult, humiliate, or intimidate" based on race or religion, reflecting a belief that multicultural harmony trumps absolute expressive freedom.

The Incompatibility Argument

1.Free Speech as Non-Negotiable vs. Multiculturalism's Pragmatic Limits
Mill's free speech is absolute in principle—only curtailed when it directly harms others through clear, immediate danger (his "harm principle"). Multiculturalism, as Minns suggests, demands pre-emptive restrictions to avoid hurt feelings or social unrest among diverse groups. This clashes with Mill's view: if speech is stifled to protect cultural sensibilities (e.g., banning criticism of religious practices), it prioritises group identity over individual liberty.

2.Truth-Seeking vs. Social Engineering
Mill saw free speech as a mechanism for uncovering truth through robust, even abrasive, discourse. Multiculturalism, by contrast, often seeks to engineer a cohesive society by suppressing divisive ideas. Moens cites Minns' justification—peace over liberty—as evidence that multiculturalism values a managed outcome over the messy, truth-driven process Mill championed. When NSW laws were rushed in response to a hoaxfirebombing (later debunked), the state chose control over open inquiry, undermining Mill's insistence that truth emerges only when all views, even mistaken ones, are aired.

3.Individual vs. Group Rights
Classical liberalism, per Mill, centres on the individual as the unit of moral and political value. Multiculturalism, especially in its modern Australian form, elevates group rights—cultural, ethnic, or religious—often at the individual's expense. The Spectator article notes Minns' implication that free speech must bend to accommodate a "multicultural community," suggesting the state mediates between groups rather than safeguarding personal autonomy. This group-centric approach, seen in policies funding cultural preservation or policing "hate speech," contradicts Mill's focus on individual reason and agency, which need no collective filter.

4.Censorship's Slippery Slope
Mill warned that any restriction on speech risks escalating into broader oppression, as power holders define "harm" ever more loosely. Multiculturalism's reliance on subjective terms like "offend" or "insult" (enshrined in Section 18C) opens this door. Moens references the NSW laws' shaky foundation—a fabricated crisis—showing how multiculturalism's speech curbs can be exploited for political gain, far beyond Mill's narrow exception for imminent violence. Once speech is tethered to cultural peace, the state gains a blank check to silence dissent, eroding liberalism's core.

Defense Against Counterarguments

Counter: Multiculturalism Enhances Liberty by Including All Voices
Proponents might argue that multiculturalism broadens liberty by ensuring diverse groups can participate without fear of vilification. Yet, Mill would counter that true inclusion comes through free debate, not enforced silence. Suppressing speech to protect minorities infantilises them, denying their right to engage as equals in the clash of ideas.

Counter: Practical Necessity in a Diverse Society
Minns' view—that Australia's diversity requires speech limits—might seem pragmatic given incidents like the 2023 Sydney Opera House protests. But Mill rejected pragmatism that sacrifices principle: if diversity can't withstand free expression, it's a fragile facade, not a strength. Classical liberalism demands resilience, not censorship, to navigate pluralism.

Counter: Mill's Era Lacked Modern Diversity
Critics could claim Mill's ideas don't fit today's multicultural reality. Yet, his principles were forged amid 19th-century Britain's own upheavals—religious strife, class conflict—and remain universal. Free speech, he argued, is the best arbitration of difference, not its enemy.

Multiculturalism, as articulated by Minns and embodied in Australia's legal framework, is incompatible with John Stuart Mill's vision of free speech and classical liberalism. It trades individual liberty for collective stability, prioritises group sensitivities over truth-seeking, and empowers the state to censor rather than protect. Mill would see this as a betrayal of liberalism's essence: a society where speech bows to cultural coexistence isn't free—it's managed. The Spectator article's alarm at Minns' words rings true—multiculturalism, in this form, costs Australia the very freedoms Mill held sacred.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2025/03/did-multiculturalism-cost-australia-free-speech/

https://www.amren.com/news/2025/03/did-multiculturalism-cost-australia-free-speech/

"NSW Labor Premier Chris Minns has said something appalling.

Whether or not it is true, remains to be seen.

Essentially, Minns has alleged that free speech must be sacrificed to keep the peace in multicultural Australia.

It is implied that we cannot 'get along' unless our words are constrained by the government.

'I recognise and I fully said from the beginning, we don't have the same freedom of speech laws that they have in the United States, and the reason for that is that we want to hold together a multicultural community and have people live in peace.'

Even without context (which I will give in a moment), it is a terrible thing to admit.

Australia has been multi-ethnic since the beginning, and it has never required restrictive speech laws to stop racism or to quell violence.

Taking the Premier at his word, that multiculturalism cannot survive without the strong-arm of government oppressing speech, it is fair to argue instead that those individuals who cannot live peacefully do not deserve to seek shelter in Australia.

What was it that former Prime Minister John Howard said? 'We will decide who comes to this country, and the circumstances in which they come.'

The context which brought about this shocking admission from the Labor Premier is in relation to the hate speech laws which were rushed through Parliament. The crisis used to justify the already controversial measures has been revealed as a hoax allegedly perpetrated by criminals to negotiate reduced sentences. This was, apparently, known from early on.

Various politicians in NSW are agitating for these laws to be rescinded.

MLC John Ruddick said of these repeals, 'Parliament was misinformed by the Minns government about the urgency of the bills referred to in one A, B, and C … this House calls on the Minns government to repeal the bills … and apologise for both misleading this Parliament, preventing a Parliamentary Inquiry, and further curbing free speech principles by these reactionary bills.'

Here is the beginning of Minns' comment:

'There have been some that have been agitating in the Parliament to nullify the laws to remove them off the statute books, think about what kind of toxic message that would send to the NSW community.

'And I think the advocates for those changes need to explain what do they want people to have the right to say?

'What kind of racist abuse do they want to see, or to be able to lawfully see, on the streets of Sydney?'"