Religion, terrorism and free speech

Secularism beseiged

The sectarian censorship of public debate about religion – led by the AHRC – becomes curiouser and curiouser when regard is had to the protection for freedom of religion conferred by s 116 of the Australian Constitution which has been held to extend to the freedom to reject religion altogether as rank superstition.

It seems that, to some extent, a small number of people who have settled in Australia in the past generation or two have been misinformed by the authorities about the secular nature of the Australian polity and, in particular, have not been informed about s 116 of the Australian Constitution or about the freedom to reject religious ideas, beliefs and practices and to do so publicly and offensively.

In his first annual report (2011) as INSLM, Mr Bret Walker SC, dared to offer the following secular heresy

One problem that may not have any remedy arises from the demonstrated capacity of terrorism to be motivated by religious beliefs and for religions to have typical cultural or ethnic identifications. Those identifications may not be fair or accurate. Prejudices can elide critical distinctions. The presence of religion in terrorist motivations also adds in most cases the weight of monotheism, a shared attribute of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Sharing that attribute has not historically linked the People of the Book in close friendship. Such tolerance as monotheism permits is toleration, after all, of others who are held to be wrong. None of this helps to prevent social distrust or hostility when different ethnic and cultural groups travel or migrate, including in settler societies such as Australia. The success of multiculturalism cannot conceal this problem.

"De-radicalisation" – yes or no?

Nowadays, there is a lot of generalised talk about the supposed need for Australian governments to take the lead in securing "de-radicalisation" of (mostly young) persons with terrorist propensities said to be attributable to political, cultural and socio-economic factors. The National Action Plan to Build on Social Cohesion, Harmony and Security (2006) is the nation's response to what was acknowledged to be an imported religious problem.

Insofar as it is possible to make sense of official expositions of what "de-radicalisation" means, there is little reason to be confident that it can be secured and more than one reason to fear that it will do far more harm than good.

As a matter of fundamental democratic principle, the State has no role to play other than, where necessary, to emphasise that violence is intolerable and to enforce the general criminal law regardless of the motivation for violence.

Unwisely, the architects of the 2006 plan, including its opportunistic multifaith movement promoters, chose to entangle the machinery of Australian government further in the substance of religious and related beliefs or practices by seeking to ensure obedience to what is supposed to be the true, correct, or moderate version of religious beliefs.

This is asking for trouble by stirring up sectarian rivalries and animosities. Even so-called "moderates" exhibit resentment and resistance thereby promoting more religious alienation from Australia's secular system of government.