Who are we defending?
There has been much discussion about the famed Victoria’s Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001. The recent decision against Catch the Fire Ministries has brought out all sorts of “thin edge of the wedge arguements” - as this article suggests you only have to read some Australian daily newspapers to think the end of
democracy and freedom of speech as we know it as arrived.
As I have read the letters and comments in the newspapers, I find myself reading them out to Dan with the comment - but.. but…
This article articulates well the ludicrious statements that are being made about the decision. I am unsure whether I think this law is a good one. However, I do know that debating its merits by arguing the end of the world is probably not the way for healthy discussion on the subject. I think there are some concersns with the law, however I do think that the Christian groups that are heartily defending Catch the Fire Ministries should comment on whether they agree with the comments that were made. I for one, would want to distance myself from such unwise, inflammatory remarks about the Islamic faith in such times as this. Christian leaders should be helping people to move past the demonisation and simplistic rehoteric that is pushed by our political leaders.
Waleed Aly rightly reminds us about what the decision was about:
For example, we have heard little about the imputation that Muslims (without distinction) have a plot to use violence and terror to overthrow Western democracies and replace them with repressive regimes. The same is true of the imputation that Australian Muslims would rape, torture and kill Christians in Australia when the time is right.
These are not Koranic quotes. This is not religious debate. It is not even a critique of Islam. It is hate-inducing sociological assertion; a putrid smear made without even a scintilla of evidence in support. Judge Higgins quite rightly found this was not done reasonably and in good faith for any purpose in the public interest.
Do we (Christian leaders) wish to defend these types of statements? Because with the outcry over this decision - where is the condemenation for such statements? Is this now Christian thinking, dialogue and love in action?
December 30th, 2004 at 12:59 pm
I will condemn any statement that makes blanket accusations against Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Atheists, Secular Humanists, Hippies, Yippies, Antidisestablishmentarians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Rastafarians, and assorted splinter groups.
But I will not defend laws like the one instituted in Victoria, and I’ve stated my reasons before. I would remind you of the words of Voltaire (?): “I do not agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.”
And I must also say that there is some provision in U.S. constitutional law that would penalize people for speech that incites hatred if the speech was directly and immediately followed by violence.
December 30th, 2004 at 1:06 pm
I agree with you Bryan, although I wouldn’t perhaps be the doomsayer you would be on this one. I too am uncomfortable with the law as I said I am unsure about this one. But, that was not my point.
My point was in the outcry that we have experienced in Australia there have been too few statements like the one you gave above. I would like to see more people start with the statement you did.
December 30th, 2004 at 4:40 pm
Having read some of the things that Catch the Fire Ministries have allegedly said I find the lack of outcry by the community immensely disturbing. It really does not matter what religion these people claim to represent and which one they are vilifying. They do not represent an image of an Australian that I am comfortable with. Maybe it is a cultural difference and Americans are quite happy to tolerate these types of people making these types of statements in the USA but in Australia I like to think we are more tolerant of the religious and ethnic diversity of our population.
Everyone in Australia is entitled to their views but society should not tolerate the incitement of religious or racial hatred by a group of extremists such as these. They are essentially terrorists using a different vehicle to incite terror and if they are allowed to continue the result will be exactly the same; innocent people will die.
It is a bit sad that we need laws to contain the damage these people are causing. One would have hoped that Australia would still have had enough of “fair go” mentality for them to gain no traction. It seems however that the times are indeed a changin’ and Australia is not the accepting and tolerant place that it once was.
December 31st, 2004 at 11:45 am
Maybe it is a cultural difference and Americans are quite happy to tolerate these types of people making these types of statements in the USA but in Australia I like to think we are more tolerant of the religious and ethnic diversity of our population.
Yes, it is most definitely a cultural difference. We don’t believe that you have to shut people up to display your “tolerance.”
December 31st, 2004 at 12:47 pm
Then again, what is more important: tolerance for those who are speaking things that are hateful, demonising, fear mongering, scapegoating or tolerance for those for whom this type of language is directed at.
I find myself agreeing with both of you - and let me tell you that is a scary and uncomfortable space knowing both of you
January 1st, 2005 at 5:03 am
Rather than asking what is *more* important, perhaps it would be better to ask how to uplift both the right of free speech and expression (no matter how odious it might be to us) AND the respect for those who differ from us.
Attempting to legislate against such speech is not the way to do that. Of course, as an Aussie judge said in a recent case, “Australians don’t have this fascination with free speech that Americans have.” (paraphrasing somewhat)
January 2nd, 2005 at 11:23 pm
I think you will find that America is equally adept at shutting up those who grossly violate their social mores regardless of any perceived rights.
I believe that Australia is actually more tolerant of people than the USA but that does not mean we should tolerate behaviour that grossly violates our social mores. I am quite happy for the Catch the Fire ministries to exist, along with other equally extreme groups in the community. There are however obligations that come with belonging to any society and sanctions are appropriate where a violation of those obligations takes place.
Australian society generally has a “live and let live” attitude and I find it difficult to accept extreme racist (or the religious equivalent) propoganda of the nature of some of the Catch The Fire ministries statements strengthens our democracy. Quite the reverse I feel that it undermines our egalitarian easy going way of life.
Feel free to correct me Dan, but as I understand it Australia is not burdened with a Bill of Rights that will force us to diminish the quality of our society through forcing us to tolerate abberant and noxious behaviour.
January 4th, 2005 at 8:53 am
Feel free to correct me Dan, but as I understand it Australia is not burdened with a Bill of Rights that will force us to diminish the quality of our society through forcing us to tolerate abberant and noxious behaviour.
Yes, we all know how unfortunate it is to be “burdened” by a bill of rights. I find your argument so refreshingly obnoxious that I cannot adequately express how utterly fascist it is in its implications. We wouldn’t want to allow any of *those* types of thoughts to be found in our society.
I think you will find that America is equally adept at shutting up those who grossly violate their social mores regardless of any perceived rights.
I think you need to do some further research, greenman. Perhaps you might want to ask Larry Flynt, or Fred Phelps (of “God Hates Fags!” fame), or the imperial wizard of the Ku Klux Klan (any chapter).
Australian society generally has a “live and let live” attitude and I find it difficult to accept extreme racist (or the religious equivalent) propoganda of the nature of some of the Catch The Fire ministries statements strengthens our democracy.
That’s because you seem very confident that you can judge the boundaries, and they won’t be moved.
(more later)
January 4th, 2005 at 10:00 am
Bryan, I find it interesting that for American’s this is such a touchy issue. One that I am not without sympathy, but I also find the sensitivity and passion that surrounds it interesting.
Why jump to calling greenman’s position facist? Surely, their can be limits on free speech without being a facist state?
“That’s because you seem very confident that you can judge the boundaries, and they won’t be moved.”
Mmmm, having just read an article talking about the Bush’s Administration plans for more permanent prison camps in Guantanamo Bay to house those for whom they don’t have enough evidence to convict, I find that a little rich.
January 4th, 2005 at 12:32 pm
Phil,
Why would that be rich? you are, after all, reading an article about plans that haven’t been proposed, enacted, or challenged in court yet. And you probably haven’t been reading the heated opposition to such plans all across my blogroll. And, indeed, the very fact that you are *reading an article about it* reveals the beauty of our model fo free speech.
Surely, their can be limits on free speech without being a facist state?
Yes, Phil, everyone has *limits* on free speech. Even in the U.S., you can’t yell theatre in a crowded firehouse (wait, strike that. Reverse it). The question is, where? It’s a lot shorter distance from the thought police laws that you have in the religious tolerance act (is criticizing the asinine law itself a violation of the statute?) to fascism than our speech laws.
(At this point, it might be worthwhile to examine the recent Canadian examples, where people have been forbidden from quoting the Bible in opposition to homosexuality. Could Australia be far from that?)
Perhaps this is such a touchy subject for me because I have made my living most of my life through the providence of the First Amendment. I live in the greatest democracy in the world in large part thanks to the protections provided by the Bill of Rights.
But I also know some of our history. And that history is that even our standards of free speech were hard-earned and a long time coming for many groups.
January 4th, 2005 at 2:29 pm
I guess for me it is rich in that I don’t see the “thin edge of the wedge” arguments being applied across the board. Your sensitivity to freedom of speech is obvious but I was just pointing out that the same sensitivity doesn’t seem to exist for other ‘rights’.
You say you live in the greatest democracy in the world. By what standards? I know this is a little bit of a side track but in my opinion, this is a myth that many American’s view the world. I live in a great democracy as do you. How do you rate the greatest ones?
I, like you agree with free speech - I don’t believe the debate has to be always about extreme positions. By the way, in Australia too, we cannot yell fire in a theatre, and we don’t have a bill of rights.
So, if you do think there can be limits on free speech and not be a fascist state - can you help me understand why you thought that the greenman’s position was facist?
January 4th, 2005 at 2:53 pm
If you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, why is it ok to yell ‘muslims have a secret plan to rape you’ in a community crowded with anti-muslim fear?
January 4th, 2005 at 3:01 pm
The free speech issue in Australia has been a little tortured. As has been previously stated, we don’t have a bill of rights. So it would be difficult to foresee how a challenge to the racial and religious vilification act would be framed.
In the late eighties and early nineties there were a number of high profile cases which interpreted implied rights in our constitution, including a limited implied right to free speech (in the context of political commentary in the public interest).
This whole movement was seen as “judicial activism” and opposed particularly by conservative commentators. Since then, the High Court has been stacked with a range of conservative appointments which have insured that any messing about with rights is put on the back-burner.
I am not crying about it. I am not really in favour of the act, but not because it violates some right to free speech, but because I think it is counterproductive and provides a soap box to every nut job with an issue.
Our system is not based around the idea of civil rights in the way that the US system is. This means that we end up engaging with the same issues differently. See the difference in our reactions to the compulsory voting issue as an example.
I don’t see the absence of a rights based dialogue means that we lack the protections which a western liberal democracy requires. The UK doesn’t have a constitution at all, but its citizens are also protected.
January 6th, 2005 at 3:09 pm
Three cheers for nigel’s remark - I wholeheartedly endorse it. All this “end of free speech” rubbish from Catch the Fire’s defenders is nothing but a smokescreen to distract people from the comments made by the pastors in question, and how virulent, false and malicious they really are.
The law is the law, impartially and independently administered. Don’t complain if you trangress it, particularly not with such claptrap. If Muslims had held a meeting and said that all Christians were full of hate and had plans to hoist the Arab world’s babioes on a pikestaff or some similar theme, they’d be run out of town like a man passing $3 notes.
Get real - Catch the Fire knew the law, broke it, and are now facing the consequences. End of story.
January 7th, 2005 at 11:14 am
You say you live in the greatest democracy in the world. By what standards? I know this is a little bit of a side track but in my opinion, this is a myth that many American’s view the world. I live in a great democracy as do you. How do you rate the greatest ones?
I guess it would depend on what you want to rate, wouldn’t it? And I don’t want to descend into an argument about foreign policy in this, either.
But I do think that the thing that makes our democracy great (and perhaps greater than Australia’s) is the fact that there IS a bill of rights that provides solid protection for certain fundamental rights, including the right to say stupid things without having to fear government encroachment from well-meaning folks who just want to make sure everyone feels good.
Several people have commented that “the law is good as applied,” but no one has addressed the concerns expressed earlier about chilling speech that *doesn’t* violate the law, or the chilling of speech that falls outside the law’s scope, but a complaint is brought against someone for malicious reasons?
You see, I’m not necessarily interested in defending the catch the fire folks. I’m saying it’s a stupid law that’s literally just *waiting* for someone to abuse it. I guess, though, that Australians are *way* too smart to do something like that. Like they were *way* too smart to re-elect PM Howard, eh?
Yeah.
January 7th, 2005 at 11:48 am
By the by, Greenman made this statement earlier:
“They are essentially terrorists using a different vehicle to incite terror and if they are allowed to continue the result will be exactly the same; innocent people will die.” about the catch the fire folks. Would that be considered incitement to hate?
I mean, the use of the term “terrorist” is definitely language used for a purpose of vilification of the CTF people. He claims their activities will cause the deaths of innocent people, despite the fact that no such causal link has been shown to exist between their speech and such murderous (terrorist?) activities.
Maybe Greenman should be hauled before the court for violating Section 8.
January 7th, 2005 at 2:26 pm
Well, in my view there is an inherent potential for any law to be abused in an adversarial system. The same problem can arise through civil damages claims, through defamation and through complaints such as these.
And I don’t think anyone is suggesting that Australians are any less fallible than anyone else in the world in regards to their legal system. I am certainly not.
I think that there is general consensus within the community (and around the country) that racial and religious vilification should be regulated in some manner. I personally think that the regime will change to be some other model in the future.
January 7th, 2005 at 3:30 pm
“I guess, though, that Australians are *way* too smart to do something like that. Like they were *way* too smart to re-elect PM Howard, eh?”
You certainly will not get an argument out of me for the statement that Australians are stupid to relect Howard!
I just find it ironic this sensitivity about freedom of speech, big noting the American democracy and how important the bill of rights are. I admire the American democracy story - although I think in some areas it is very much weaker than the Australian west minister system.
But I can not help but think of the ongoing detention of people who have not been charged with anything, denied access to lawyers etc. I wonder how “great” the bill of rights would be seen by those held in Guantanamo bay. It makes me think that the great democracy of America extends rights to only some people. That is flawed in my opinion.
January 7th, 2005 at 4:05 pm
But I can not help but think of the ongoing detention of people who have not been charged with anything, denied access to lawyers etc. I wonder how “great” the bill of rights would be seen by those held in Guantanamo bay. It makes me think that the great democracy of America extends rights to only some people. That is flawed in my opinion.
Somehow, I knew it would come back to the detentions. Which brings up the whole issue of war-time suspensions of rights and the like which we have discussed previously. As I have stated before, those detentions have been challenged (and overturned in some instances) through the court system, clearly showing that the constitution is *working* through this situation, although slowly and in uncharted territory.
Further, the vast majority of opinion that I have read (from *conservative bloggers* mind you) has been opposed to indefinite detentions like those proposed recently by unnamed sources in the government (not that there’s actually a proposal on the table, just that “some people are considering making a proposal”). I think you’d find that *most Americans* are in favor of either “fishing or cutting bait” with the detainees.
As far as the bill of rights being only extended to certain people, that’s actually always been the case. The U.S. bill of rights doesn’t protect more than 90 percent of the world’s population. I’m certain there are about 75 cuban political prisoners who would love to discuss the importance of free political speech with you.
Perhaps some other time you’d care to expound on how the U.S. system is weaker than the west minster system. Certainly, the U.S. seems to be the only system that functions as it does. Everyone else seems to prefer the prime minister system, which seems to me to lead to far more time spent trying to knit together coalitions of seemingly disparate political flavors in order to get things done.
January 7th, 2005 at 4:55 pm
Bryan, I for one have always preferred your system to the westminister.
It was thought up by deists who were worried about the spread of sin.
It is a pity that the US doesn’t export this part of US culture to every nation in the world.
January 7th, 2005 at 10:17 pm
Ahem. Probably better to call our system Washminster. A nice short intro here.
January 8th, 2005 at 2:58 pm
Homer, surely you arent suggesting that those who created the west minister system or the Australian system weren’t deists?
Saint, thanks for the link interesting read.
Bryan,
“Somehow, I knew it would come back to the detentions. Which brings up the whole issue of war-time suspensions of rights and the like which we have discussed previously. As I have stated before, those detentions have been challenged (and overturned in some instances) through the court system, clearly showing that the constitution is *working* through this situation, although slowly and in uncharted territory. “
Well, of course it comes back to something as important as locking people up and in some cases torturing them. This is a very real and important issue about rights and values that we hold important. I find it hard to talk theoretically about rights while this type of thing goes on and I include my own government policy of detention centres for refugees. Rights are even more important when you extend them to the people who you don’t agree with or trust.
I am glad that the US constitution is “working” – even putting aside the fact that it has taken some time and is still not concluded – my point remains that the very people who seem to be so sensitive about the bill of rights and free speech seem to me to be very laid back about the lack of rights extended to others. As for suspending rights during war – it would seem to me to be a very dangerous thing to do this consider the way this war has been declared. By calling it the ‘war on terror’ – the US has in effect put themselves in a war that will never end (as admitted by Bush). This means the rights have been suspended for ever!
“I think you’d find that *most Americans* are in favor of either “fishing or cutting bait” with the detainees. “
I am sorry I am not familiar with this phrase.. “fishing or cutting bait”
“As far as the bill of rights being only extended to certain people, that’s actually always been the case. The U.S. bill of rights doesn’t protect more than 90 percent of the world’s population. I’m certain there are about 75 cuban political prisoners who would love to discuss the importance of free political speech with you.”
Yes you are right and that only serves to strengthen the sense of irony.
“Perhaps some other time you’d care to expound on how the U.S. system is weaker than the west minster system.”
Firstly, I have to say I am not trained in political science and would have to with a grin on my face say that my exposure to the US political scene and the way it works is largely due to blogs and … drum roll… the TV series the west wing! Or as my conservative American friend calls it – the left wing.
So, given that here are some quick uneducated comments:
1. I don’t like how the US system gives great power to unelected people.
2. I don’t like how the voting system in the US is cumbersome, riddled with problems and administrated on a state by state basis resulting in differences between the states.
3. I don’t like how voting is not compolsury and therefore the President is elected by relatively few people.
4. I don’t like how such power is invested in the US Presidency and I feel that the aura of invincibility and power that is granted to this very powerful CEO figure is counter intuitive in a democracy.
5. I don’t like how some Americans often say that they invented democracy and look down nose at other democratic expressions in the world.
6. I like how in the Australian system that my Prime Minister is a part of a team – he does not need to know it all or be responsible for it all.
7. I like how in the Australian system that we have an independent in the governor general that is role that supersedes politics.
8. I do however wish we would move to cutting ties with the UK. But, that is a discussion for another time.
9. I like how the Australian system doesn’t have a bill of rights. To me the bill of rights defines everything (or the result is) in black and white. That is why my question about who we should choose to see as more important to give tolerance to can not be answered if we view it through a black and white bill of rights. Life though is not black and white and is often grey, chaotic and messy.
10. I think the bill of rights has had a flawed history when I see how it did not grapple with segregation or give equal rights to black people. I guess I see the bill of rights as valuable just not the definitive fix all that sometimes it is held up to be.
On the whole, I see some advantages with the US system and some advantages with the Australian system. Hence, my comment that you live in a great democracy as do I and I think it is an American myth that causes some problems as they view the world through the eyes that they live in the greatest democracy and they are the inventors.
Just my two cents worth. (as I am watching season 4 finale of west wing )
January 8th, 2005 at 3:20 pm
no Phil, I said the US foundres were deists who were very much aware of sin and its repercussions.
This is not evident in the system we inherited.
January 8th, 2005 at 8:34 pm
Homer, so can you clarify for me. You are saying that the writers of the US constiution were deists who were aware of sin and its repercussions and that this is different to UK and Australian history?
If so could you explain to me further why you think this is so.
January 9th, 2005 at 2:04 pm
Phil, it is pretty easy.
The US founders were aware of sin and concious enough to make it hard to permeate the system hence the seperation of powers.
Despite many British PMs being quite sincere christians and having cabinets dominated by them this thought never occured to them.
In Australia we have rarely had christians as PMs. The one with the most pronounced faith was James Scullin but he was in no position to do anything.
Under the British system there is no difference between the executive and the legislature. The best we can hope for in Asutralia is the Government not having a majority in the Senate.
Now thanks to Mad Meg and Andrew Murray we don’t even have that.
January 9th, 2005 at 2:15 pm
Homer, the seperation of powers is enshirined in the Australian constiution.
So, I can’t follow your logic. You praise the US system for being created by deists who were aware of sin. Something that I think is true of the UK and Australian system as all were professing Christians.
It seems illogical to me to suggest that because there is not the same seperation of powers in the UK system that the founders were not deists who were aware of sin.
I don’t see the relevance of your comment about British and Australian PM’s not being Christian. I for one like the fact that in our system (like the US) we are able not forced to elect someone who professes a particular faith.
As for “it is pretty easy”… well, Homer thanks for that put down - again!
January 9th, 2005 at 2:34 pm
Phil, you see putdowns where there aren’t any.
The seperation of powers is where the Justice, executive and legislature are all well seperated. In both trhe UK and Australia the executive and legislature are the same. There is no speration of powers.
Few ‘christians’ who are monarchists understand that
The Yanks did something about trying to ensure sin did not permeate the political system.
Neither the Poms nor we ever did so. Perhaps wwe needed more deists of intellectual understanding and less ‘christians’who appear to have litlle.
January 9th, 2005 at 2:42 pm
Homer, I am glad it is not a put down - perhaps you could be more careful with your language - admitedly this is a minor example and I know I am probably sensitive due to the past ones.
Is this a put down?
Perhaps we needed more deists of intellectual understanding and less ‘christians’who appear to have litlle.
Are you saying I am only a ‘christian’ who has little understanding.
This ‘christian’ with little understanding would like to suggest that a reading of the Australian constution will demonstate that there is in fact a seperation of powers in the Australian political system.
January 9th, 2005 at 3:17 pm
Phil given you are not an historical political figure in Australian history no it wasn’t levelled at you it was leveled at our plitical leaders of the past
January 9th, 2005 at 4:23 pm
Ok. see my sensitivity is showing again. I think I will bow out of conversations with you for a while. I find myself ultra sensitive considering your past comments about how I don’t believe in the Bible, inference that I am not a Christian, can’t believe I am a minister etc. Which all stand from you without apology.
So, I think it might be best for me to cease for a while.