Suppression of free speech: the real fear of social unrest

But therein lies the difficulty for, whilst the common law has long been the upholder of free speech, by contrast statutory law made by governments, in adopting and codifying or overriding the common law, or in the making of entirely new laws, may fetter the rights of free speech.

For example, the misplaced section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) is all about protecting people from disparaging expressions of opinion and from having their feelings hurt by things other people may say about them in respect of their race, colour or national or ethnic origin.

Similarly, sections 16 and 17 of the Tasmanian Anti-discrimination Act 1998 (which is similar in its terms to those of comparable acts in other states and territories) provides grounds for the suppression of free speech, as demonstrated by the recent decision of the Tasmanian Anti-discrimination Commission that a booklet opposed to same-sex marriage, entitled “Don’t Mess With Marriage”, issued by the Catholic Archbishop of Hobart, discriminates on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Indeed, the interpretation of many anti-discrimination provisions, when given to political correctness and the misguided notion of mutual tolerance and respect, finds purpose to exceed the legitimate need for such regulation in a way that harms the offender more than it does to alleviate any hurt to the offended. The rights of freedom of speech, of expression, of religion and of such other social norms of the majority are then subjected to the mere appeasement and comfort of the minority.

Thus, not only is the majority required by law to recognise, allow and accommodate for the cultural norms of minorities in order to avoid hurting their feelings and causing displeasure, by the same law minorities do not have to modify anything or yield in any way to majority norms or wishes.

This is like the distinction to be made when having a boarder or an honoured guest in your house. One is expected to fit in with the household routine and the norms of the existing occupants. The other to be afforded special privileges and considerations to the disadvantage of everyone else who lives there.

This pandering to the sensibilities of minorities is observed at this time of the year, by the pressure in some communities not to publicly celebrate Christmas too openly and joyfully, or at all, should it happen to offend some non-Christian in our midst.  This ‘requirement’ is taking hold in some shopping centres and is especially the case in our public schools, where the display of nativity scenes and children’s end-of-year concerts and plays, with Christmas trees and decorations are now being regarded as anti-secular.

The Minister for Education in Victoria, James Merlino, has just issued a directive to public schools that “praise music”, being “any type of music that glorifies God or a particular religious figure or deity [meaning baby Jesus and perhaps Santa as well]” is now banned. So Christmas carols are not to be played or sung in Victorian public schools from now on.

If truth be the first casualty of war, then freedom of expression is the first casualty of cultural conflict. Should that be the price of multiculturalism? I think not. It resolves nothing. It breeds resentment and distrust, and results in greater disharmony.