Our open society is under grave threat, Calls for stronger laws to curb hate speech are dangerous By Nigel Jackson

     In my local newspaper this week (the Ferntree Gully Belgrave Mail) the front page story (“Cross of Easter”) deals with an art installation at the front of nearby Tecoma Uniting Church which is said to draw “parallels between Christ’s crucifixion and the treatment of asylum seekers in Australia”.

     Described as “confronting”, the work shows three figures representing asylum seekers hanging on crosses. The artist, the Reverend John Tansey, is reported as stating that his art work reflects “the crucifixion of the human rights of asylum seekers”. There is no reason to doubt his sincerity or compassion for detainees on Manus Island, Nauru and Christmas Island – or the church’s good intentions or those of its minister, the Reverend Matt Cutler.

     Nevertheless, the question of whether or not this is actually a foolish misuse of a sacred building and place of worship can validly be raised. More importantly, it could even be argued that the installation is a form of hate speech, in that it implicitly vilifies the federal government and others who support a tough policy to deter an unwelcome flood of illegal immigrants or “boat people” into Australia.

     It even tends to equate their policies and actions with those of the brutal and authoritarian Roman government said to have executed Jesus two millennia ago.

     What this example reminds us is that it is extremely difficult to define the term “hate speech”, or cognate terms such as “racial and religious hatred.” There is reason to feel that Gillian Triggs, a well-known advocate for human rights, and Julian Burnside, Greens candidate for Kooyong, were insufficiently aware of this when they penned their opinion piece recently calling for stronger legislation to prevent events such as the Christchurch massacre in New Zealand last month (“We need stronger laws to deal with hate speech”, 15/4).

     Under close examination, their plea really looks like a carefully manicured proposal for the increased political censorship of views they happen to dislike and disagree with, This is suggested by their thoroughly misleading description of Senator Fraser Anning’s commentary on the massacre.

     In his open letter to the Prime Minister dated 27th March the senator wrote: “My statement unequivocally condemned this heinous act of murderous violence…..  After putting the immediate blame where it belongs, I looked for contributing causes.”

     There is thus no justification at all for the description of his comments by Triggs and Burnside as “a vile response” that constituted “an abuse of free speech.” Yet they claim that his words are on the wrong side of a purported line that they draw between hate speech and free speech.

     Again, there is no reason to doubt their sincerity and good intentions; but history shows that enormous social and political damage can be done by well-meaning zealots convinced of their own personal rectitude and the unassailability of positions and arguments that they have adopted.

     The well-known difficulty of adequately defining hate speech, let alone legislating adequately against it, means that it becomes too easy for such zealots, if given political power, to crush the free speech of their moral and intellectual opponents, under cover of opprobrious terms such as “hatred” or “racism”.

     The truth is that, far from needing weightier laws against hate speech, Australia would benefit from the repeal of some, including Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. The open society we have enjoyed in this continent since the arrival of our British founders is currently under threat, not so much from lone psychopaths as from cadres of fanatical do-gooders.

     This is why it will be wiser of Australians to re-elect the Coalition rather than favour the ALP/Greens parties with the reins of government in the coming elections; for the anti-intellectual immoderation of crusaders is at present largely a Left-wing phenomenon; and if allowed to run wild, it could turn us into the Soviet of States of Australia. Heaven forbid!

     What should be done, then, to curb episodes of mass violence by authoritarian extremists of all kinds? Better police and security organisation surveillance of dubious characters is one; sensible education to limit unthinking prejudice is another; a return, nationally, to worship in sacred places, whether Christian or other, is another.

     But the proposal of Triggs and Burnside is a classic example of advocating a remedy that is worse than the illness. Free speech is an indispensable bulwark against tyranny.

  Nigel Jackson is an independent Melbourne writer and commentator on public affairs.