Section 18C, Free Speech and Judeo-Christian Heritage

Politicians clambering to water down section 18c of the racial discrimination act needs to understand that the right to free speech is not boundless. This is clearly seen in our parliamentary debates. The role of the parliamentary speaker is to ensure that members of parliament exercise their rights to free speech in a way that honours the parliament and all Australians for whom her members ultimately serve. In addition, the saying: “play the ball and not the man” is universally accepted to imply that free speech is never meant to be a free for all.

This short essay raises two questions: Can we exercise free speech without reference to history and our responsibilities to our fellow Australians? How should free speech be exercised in light of our Judeo-Christian heritage?

In the recent Queensland University of Technology (QUT) discrimination case: One of the student involved, Alex Wood, is supposed to have complained on Facebook that QUT (is) stopping segregation with segregation. Presumably Wood tried to say that the preferential treatment given to indigenous students is a form of discrimination against non-indigenous Australians. The three QUT students involved do not seem to understand that the general public actually practice “positive” decimation. Australian society’s treatment of disabled Australians is an example of positive discrimination. If these three students were to be denied access to a disable parking at QUT, would they still be complaining about discrimination? They would not because they would immediately recognise that disabled Australians are disadvantaged. Are these students, their legal representatives and the judge (judge Jarret) in the initial trial even aware of the plight of indigenous Australians? Are they not aware that indigenous Australians have a much lower life expectancy than the average Australians? Are these students not aware of Australia’s poor treatment of indigenous Australians? If they are then is it not reasonable to expect them to be careful in how they exercise their rights to free speech on Facebook? Is it not reasonable for them to have some empathy for indigenous Australians and therefore defer their rights to access QUT’s computers designated for people less fortunate than them? 

If these students, their legal representatives and judge Jarret are not aware of the plight of our indigenous Australians then should they not be? George Santayana said "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it”. It seems that Santayana is right; we are no longer telling the next generation about some of the unsavoury parts of our history? White washing our history does not help anyone. A functioning democracy requires citizens who not only are aware of their rights but who are also willing to excise their rights within the context of their responsibilities to their fellow Australians.

Freedom of speech and many rights that we now take for granted actually originated from the Magna Carta. Lord Denning described the Carta as the greatest constitutional document of all times. Moreover, he argued that it is the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot.  2015 was the 800th anniversary of the founding of the Magna Carta. In that year, Thomas Andrew of the Theos think tank wrote “The Church and the Charter: Christianity and the forgotten roots of the Magna Carta”. Andrew wrote: “without the support of the Church, and without the theological developments which provided the Magna Carta’s authors with their intellectual framework, it is doubtful whether 2015 would be remembered as the 800th anniversary  …” If the Magna Carta is so closely linked to our Judeo-Christian heritage then should we not exercise our rights to free speech that is consistent with the same heritage. The rights to free speech empower those under oppression to speak out against their oppressors. In the QUT discrimination case, it seems free speech has (perhaps by ignorance) become a tool to distort history and to perpetuate old racist attitude. How then are we exercising free speech in a way that is consistent to our Judeo-Christian heritage? Or in common vernacular, have those QUT students, their legal advisors and even Judge Jarret given Indigenous Australians a fair go?

Finally as we approach Christmas, we need to remember that Jesus was born in a manger and not a palace and did not grasp on to his rights as the Son of God but instead he gave away his privileges so as to server all mankind.