MUNGO MacCALLUM. Undermining Malcolm Turnbull.

 

The baying pack of coalition backbenchers demanding the abolition, or at least the dilution, of the Racial Discrimination Act may be sincere crusaders for free speech.

On the other hand they may be motivated by a desire to attack small-l liberals, of whom one is (or at least was) their own leader, Malcolm Turnbull. And some are just nasty.

But in all cases they are guilty of that most heinous of political crimes: they are out of touch with the electorate. Despite the fanatical efforts of the ideological zealots of The Australian, there is not even a squall in the twttersphere of protest about the horrors of the repression of section 18c.

The masses are not gathering in the streets proclaiming the right to insult and offend racial minorities. There are no demonstrations insisting that Australians should insist they can call Indigenous citizens apes, or throw bananas at them.

The matter has seldom been controversial at all, and when it is, it has generally been settled amicably, with expressions of regret rather than outrage. Cory Bernardi and Andrew Bolt may seethe, but that is in their nature. Turnbull, more sanguine and sensible, says it is simply not a priority and will let it rest.

The RDA is seldom used as a coercive tool, but this does not mean that it is not effective. The Attorney George Brandis may assert that people have a right to be bigots; well, sure, you can’t legislate for decency, but you can encourage it, which is the point of section 18c.

Insult and offence are often, even usually, careless rather than malicious, but they are no less hurtful to its victims, and by technically outlawing them it sends a signal that people are expected to be civil; that when they overstep the mark, society does not condone it.

No one can prevent them from being unpleasant in private: they can rant about blacks, Asians, Arabs, Jews or any other targets their prejudices fester, but if they do it in public, the victims have the right to complain and the perpetrators can be held to account.

The government cannot compel empathy, but it can and should encourage it, and this is essentially the point of the Racial Discrimination Act. Linda Burney made the point in her maiden speech in parliament last week: with vary few exceptions, those most keen to repeal the provisions are those who have never had to live through the slurs, denigration and persecution that is the regular oppression of those who are not born among the white majority.

Free speech is a fine ideal and needs to be protected; but any civilized nation knows that there are limits. Lies, libel and slander are the most obvious, incitement to violence and crime, particularly terrorism, are increasingly restricted.

To give free rein to insult and offence may appear no more than a blow to political correctness (also known as politeness) but it is, as conservatives are fond of saying, the thin edge pf the wedge.

Bernardi has said that same sex marriage may lead to bestiality. More realistically, he might consider that abolishing 18c will almost certainly encouraging division and racism, and can easily to lead on to the kind of mob violence that Australia, mercifully, usually escapes.

Mungo MacCallum is a veteran journalist who worked for many years in the Canberra Press Gallery.

print

This entry was posted in Human Rights, Politics and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to MUNGO MacCALLUM. Undermining Malcolm Turnbull.

  1. Marc-Michel Gumbert says:

    Have just been made aware of this web site. Am thoroughly impressed by the articles.

  2. Stephen K says:

    Have you read Waleed Aly’s comment at http://www.smh.com.au/comment/the-real-agenda-behind-amending-18c-sending-a-message-to-minorities-20160901-gr62nl.html?

    He exposes the cynical (or ignorant) attack on section 18C by highlighting the curious omission in the conversation of references to section 18D.

  3. Mungo thinks that the Twittersphere reflects public opinion and that laws are for education! Also that “slurs, denigration and persecution” are the “regular oppression of those who are not born among the white majority”! Things must be crook up there in Ocean Shores, because life is certainly not like that in Sydney. Oppression, n., “prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or exercise of authority”, from the Latin opprimere, “press against, crush.” Maybe he saw one too many performances of “Norm and Ahmed” while he was in the big smoke.

Comments are closed.