The things we aren't allowed to say

The UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (proclaimed in 1948) recognises the right to freedom of expression. This includes an entitlement to hold opinions without interference, and to express ideas through any media without fear of societal sanction, government retaliation, or censorship.

Australians seem to believe that such formal recognition is only necessary because these rights are often denied in undemocratic countries. While this country is at the better end of the spectrum, Australia is not without its own restrictions. Some limitations, like legal sanctions on defamation and bans on disclosure of official secrets are widely accepted as necessary. The problem is that restrictions on what we are allowed to say go far beyond such limitations, and matters have worsened over time.

A generation or two ago, taboos limiting freedom of expression were fewer and different. One issue was the prohibition (especially for the media) on using the so-called seven dirty words. Certain types of views were also strongly disapproved of. These prohibitions included criticising religion, blasphemy, disapproving of the monarchy, promoting immorality (as then perceived), and expressing "unpatriotic" views (especially ultra-left or opposing a war in which the Nation was involved).

Changes affecting freedom of expression in Australia over recent decades (in my opinion) have had three main features.

Historically, it was mainly social conservatives that sought to place bounds on what was acceptable. A lot of old-fashioned censorship (both official and informal) had been based on the idea that families should be shielded from unwholesome material. Up until about the 1960s, even the ALP was socially conservative, and (consistent with this) Australian Catholics (for example) were a key part of its heartland. Labor also supported the "White Australia" policy. Until the Hawke era it also supported the monarchy, and Rudd and Gillard (while in office) believed that marriage had to involve a man and a woman.

Nowadays, censorial behaviour is more associated with the so-called "liberal left", is very much "politically correct" in tone, and tends to admonish or discourage the expression, publication and support of politically incorrect views on a range of contentious topics. Political correctness on many issues extends from the Greens and ALP to as far right as the "small l" or wet faction of the Liberal Party. The extreme left of politics (especially in the past) was often even more censorial, sometimes seeking to deny free speech to fascists, who were often defined to include a wide range of those with opposing views.

The second major change is that many individual components of the media appear to have become more overtly ideological and politically partisan, with newspapers and other media nowadays more openly backing political parties or causes rather than simply reporting the news. One clear example is the difference in editorial positions between the Murdoch Press (including Sky/Fox TV), on the one hand, and Fairfax Media and the ABC on the other, concerning many politically charged issues (e.g. asylum seekers, climate change, left/right politics). Partisanship often also extends to major private "think-tanks", many of which are politically aligned.

Partisanship is effected through the nature of news stories presented, the political leanings of columnists/presenters, and the content of editorials, letters' columns, and investigative reporting. Pejorative and laudative journalism is also common, with public figures often labelled using judgemental terms. These include words such as "moderate", "progressive", and "highly respected" (indicating journalistic approval). On the other hand adjectives such as "hard-line", "arch-conservative", "ultra-right (or left)", not to mention "disgraced", are used to subtly (or otherwise) indicate disapproval. These days often only a sympathetic element of the media will air particular types of contentious views or positively portray controversial figures.

The third major change over recent decades is that a much expanded range of views are now effectively discouraged. This has often involved a reversal in the direction of censorship/ disapproval. In the past, for example, abortion and homosexuality were generally disapproved of by society, and immigrant groups and Indigenous people were encouraged to integrate. These days populist (and often official) attitudes on these topics have been largely reversed, and those who argue against "progressive" views risk being labelled misogynist, homophobic, or racist. Over the same period coarse language, nudity and explicit sex in the media became much more widely tolerated

Political correctness(PC) is the overwhelming consideration driving most censorship in modern day Australia. It refers to promoting language, policies, or measures that are intended not to offend or disadvantage parts of society, particularly "needy" minority groups. Political correctness also encourages "talking-up" the achievements of selected groups (and programmes affecting them), often to the point of censoring news of failures. This is mostly effected informally through moral suasion and social pressure. Editorial policy in some media also plays a part, as does Government through either media policy or legislation.

Political correctness is mostly based on good intentions. It can partly be seen as a tactful attempt to treat (often marginalised) minorities in a nice way. (Pauline Hanson's politically incorrect attacks on Asian immigration in the 1990s were justifiably criticised, both for being unduly alarmist, and for needlessly making Asian-born Australians feel unwelcome). On the other hand, political correctness becomes pernicious, when it is used as a means of shutting down one side of a legitimate debate. Political correctness can also be used to attempt to enshrine minority privilege (affording rights and privileges not given to the mainstream community) or to force a single "right" view on controversial subjects.

In legal terms, a lot of political correctness in Australia is backed by a set of Commonwealth and State anti-discrimination laws (at Commonwealth level covering race, sex, disability and age). The Australian Human Rights Commission (HRC) and equivalent state bureaucracies play a substantial role in reinforcing political correctness in respect of designated client groups.

In Australia, freedom of expression is most severely curtailed when it comes to race. This is because the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Section 18c), makes it unlawful for a person to do an act, other than in private, if this act is 'reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people" (a Commonwealth sanction that does not apply to expression of views on other subjects). The Andrew Bolt, Bill Leak, and QUT cases are well known examples.

In Tasmania legislative barriers to freedom of expression are even broader because Section 17 of the Tas­manian Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 bans "conduct which offends, humiliates, intimidates, insults or ridicules another person on the basis of an attribute referred to in Section 16". Not only does Section 16 refer to race. It also refers to "age, sexual orientation, lawful sexual activity, gender, gender identity, intersex, marital status, relationship status, pregnancy, breastfeeding, parental status, family responsibilities, disability, industrial activity, political belief or affiliation, political activity, religious belief or activity, irrelevant criminal record, and irrelevant medical record".

The act earlier this year attracted notoriety when a transgender activist lodged a complaint concerning a Catholic Church booklet defending traditional marriage. (The complaint was later withdrawn). In addition, under state anti-discrimination laws ithas become illegal in many jurisdictions to merely protest or pray near an abortion clinic, even if no harassment of clients is involved. Generally speaking, it is difficult to soften provisions of anti-discrimination laws because of resistance from their client groups and from politicians seeking to represent or gain votes from such groups.

There are also a range of policies, causes, and institutions (mainly darlings of the left) that are placed on a moral pedestal due to political correctness. These include publicly provided education and healthcare, subsidised formal child care, equal employment opportunity, assistance to the "disadvantaged", "organic" gardening and food production, the environment, and industrial democracy.

When it comes to freedom of expression in Australia the most censorial area almost certainly relates to views concerning those of Indigenous descent. Essentially a combination of political correctness, Section 18(c), and Indigenous solidarity have acted to suppress discussion of politically incorrect opinions. Indigenous solidarity is the notion that Indigenous advocacy should be united behind a consensus view, with the raising of divisive issues (such as Indigenous substance abuse, black-on-black violence, sexual abuse within Indigenous communities, very high rates of inter-marriage with non-Indigenous Australians, and recognition that some people of mixed descent identify both as Indigenous and non-Indigenous) being regarded as a betrayal of the Indigenous cause.

There is a long list of other areas where political correctness is used in an attempt to limit public debate.

The left has pushed the notion that taking in refugees is noble, and that those wishing to control the entry of asylum seekers are uncompassionate and immoral.

• PC advocates talk up the virtues of Islam to the point of denying any links with terrorism, sometimes vilifying those of contrary view.
• The debate about the role of women in combat positions in the military has effectively been shut down by a combination of political correctness, decisions by politicians, and military discipline both here and overseas (despite dissent from many eminent current and former military personnel).
• It is considered poor form to make anything other than positive comments about women and designated disadvantaged groups. A form of (PC) reverse sexism has led to publicly sponsored ads and campaigns commonly presenting men negatively, while simultaneously presenting women either in positive roles or as victims of male behaviour.
• PC ideas are being pushed in the public school system and in the mandatory school curriculum. This limits educational freedom and has the effect of indoctrinating the young.
• There is PC pressure to only discuss homosexuality in a positive light (viewed as part of normal behaviour). A form of moral blackmail (promoting the prospect of LGBTI suicides) was used to help bring about the abandonment of the same-sex marriage referendum.
• The government schools lobby has worked to suppress the publication of league table schools data comparisons (in which selective schools and non-government schools do well), and to only facilitate "fair comparisons" of schools serving students from similar socio-educational backgrounds.
• There is token (PC) use of sign language in public sector media events, despite most TV being subtitled, and there being only 9723 Auslan speakers recorded in the 2011 Census.There is an element of prohibition on humour concerning some PC topics (remember Alexander Downer and the "things that batter" joke).
• It is still PC to support industrial democracy (with a commitment to industrial democracy principles still being a mandatory part of public sector job selection criteria), even though governments and employers now play only lip service to the idea.

Overall, it seems to me that in all the legislation that exists in Australia concerning human rights, a glaring omission is the lack of a legislated over-reaching right to freedom of thought and expression, with only very limited nominated exceptions. Freedom of expression should be one of the most basic human rights of all. Currently, many people are reluctant to speak out in politically correct debates, and feel that they can only hold an unfashionable view in private.