Racists and Jihadis both have the right of free speech

What of the second of our examples, that of the Right?

The Zaky Mallah affair, and Australia's existing sedition laws, shows how thin be the Right's commitment to free speech.

Let us assume the worst of Zaky Mallah. That is that he was a jihadist, is a jihadist, and used the bully pulpit of ABC Q&A to promote the jihadi worldview. That is to say he spoke in favour of radical Islamist ideology which included a generalised call for a jihad to set up an Islamic caliphate that covers the entire Muslim world.

That too would be free speech, and Mallah would have the right to air that view on the nation's public broadcaster.

So long as Zaky Mallah did not call for an immediate act of violence by those in actual possession of the means of murder against specific targets then, on grounds of free speech, even a call for jihad should be construed as permissible discourse.

Advocates of war and the use of offensive military firepower make arguments in the public sphere calling for the waging of warfare often indeed almost on a daily basis. Although one might strenuously object to these arguments, very few of us, including the most ardent pacifist, would argue that one cannot peacefully air a generalised argument calling for the waging of a war.

That applies no matter what type of war one is calling for; a war for democracy, a war for oil, a genocidal war, a war for God. The principle remains the same.

In 2005 the Howard government passed a number of sedition laws that restricted freedom of speech.

Andrew Lynch, Nicola McGarrity and Paul Williams in The Guardian wrote such laws"would be unthinkable, if not constitutionally impossible, in nations such as the US and Canada to restrict freedom of speech."

No party, such as the Liberal Party of Australia, that spuriously restricts freedom of speech through the promulgation and enforcement by the state of a law of sedition can remotely be said to be a liberal party.

Ironically enough these same laws define, in part, seditious intention, which is a criminal offence, to be the promotion of"feelings of ill-will or hostility between different groups so as to threaten the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth."

One could argue that racist and neo-fascist groups, such as the United Patriots Front and Reclaim Australia, fall under the ambit of this law. But notice the state does not act to enforce the law in this instance.