FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Thesis, documentation, books

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 4 | 5 || 7 | 8 |   ...   | 20 |

«Supporting sponsors Major sponsors The Australian Human Rights Commission encourages the dissemination and exchange of information provided in this ...»

-- [ Page 6 ] --

The undesirable outcome is aggravated by the fact that the present notion of ‘being offended’ is dangerously emotive. According to R Albert Mohler, ‘desperate straits are no longer required in order for an individual or group to claim the emotional status of offendedness. All that is required is often the vaguest notion of emotional distaste at what another has said, done, proposed, or presented’.37 Hence, Dr Mohler concludes: ‘Being offended does not necessarily involve any real harm but points instead to the fact that the mere presence of such an argument, image, or symbol evokes an emotional response of offendedness’.38 To make it worse, under section 18C judges are instructed to approach the conduct in question not by community standards but by the standards of the alleged victim group.39 Testing to the standard of the ‘reasonable victim’ lowers an already minimal harm threshold, adding further imprecision and uncertainty, increasing the section’s potential chilling effect on speech. Of course, this goes in line with the morally relativistic tendency to ‘minimise cultural differences’ as a way of ‘celebrating diversity’.40 In our view, however, the use of ordinary community standards is a more appropriate test to be applied in this context.

Although section 18D of the RDA provides for a range of exceptions to section 18C, with the overriding qualification that the acts in question must have been ‘said or done reasonably and in good faith’, the decision in Eatock v Bolt 41 provides a clear demonstration of the subjective nature of the existing defence. Hence, to reach the conclusion that

Mr Bolt’s conduct lacked ‘objective good faith’ Bromberg J relied upon:

A lack of care and diligence [as] demonstrated by the inclusion in the Newspaper Articles of the untruthful facts and the distortion of the truth which I have identified, together with the derisive tone, the provocative and inflammatory language and the inclusion of gratuitous asides.42 vi Dr Augusto Zimmermann is Senior Lecturer and former Associate Dean (Research) and Director of Postgraduate Studies at the School of Law at Murdoch University. Dr Zimmermann is also a Commissioner with the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia.

–  –  –

As can be seen, the existing qualifications of ‘reasonably and in good faith’ have become ‘ambiguous terms of art a judge could use to decide some speech on political, social, or cultural topics didn’t actually qualify for the exemption’.43 Without clear and defined legislative terms a judge may eventually exercise excessive judicial discretion. Any individual who favours the protection of freedom of speech ought to be sceptical of legislation that allows the judiciary to pass subjective judgement on the value, morality, or ethics of a particular statement.

When considering section 18D it is important to keep in mind that these are not, strictly speaking, ‘exceptions’ to acts that are otherwise unlawful. Rather, this section is itself a restriction on the right to freedom of expression. This point was made by French J in Bropho v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission:44 Section 18D places certain classes of acts outside the reach of section 18C.... It is important however to avoid using a simplistic taxonomy to read down section 18D. The proscription in section 18C itself creates an exception to the general principle that people should enjoy freedom of speech and expression. That general principle is reflected in the recognition of that freedom as fundamental in a number of international instruments and in national constitutions. It has also long been recognised in the common law albeit subject to statutory and other exceptions.... Against that background section 18D may be seen as defining the limits of the proscription in section 18C and not as a free speech exception to it. It is appropriate therefore that section 18D be construed broadly rather than narrowly.

It is important also to consider that the constitutional validity of the existing sections 18C and 18D of the federal RDA have never been directly tested before the High Court.45 When the current provisions were originally introduced, the Bills Digest produced by the Parliamentary Research Library noted that the government appeared to rely on the external affairs power under section 51(xxix) to provide a constitutional source of power for the Bill.46 It expressly concluded that the provision that became section 18C was more vulnerable to constitutional challenge than other sections of the Racial Hatred Bill.47 Consequently, the reasons for amending the RDA are numerous.

Misconceptions The Prime Minister, in explaining his reasons for abandoning the amendments to the RDA, stated the changes would impact the government’s relationship with the Australian Muslim community. However, as noted above, the legislation has nothing to do with religious discrimination. Perhaps the Prime Minister is unaware that the proposed amendments could not be taken to promote any such behaviour. This is because the legislation simply does not address religious matters. The legislation exclusively concerns racial, and not religious, discrimination.

One must acknowledge the enormous harm that racial discrimination causes both to individual victims and the broader community; however, in a true democracy everyone must have the right to criticise religious ideas. The Prime Minister has mistakenly applied the same formula to religious beliefs as applied to racial issues. From a freedom of speech perspective this is problematic because religion, unlike race, is not an immutable genetic characteristic. One should expect the laws of democratic societies to be much less prepared to protect criticism of voluntary life choices, compared to unchangeable attributes of an individual’s birth.48 While people cannot choose the colour of their skin, religion – to some degree at least – is a matter of personal choice. Thus, open and free discourse about religious ideas ought to be encouraged and not discouraged.

In contrast to racial issues where one finds no ultimate questions of ‘true’ or ‘false’, religion involves ultimate claims to truth and error that are not mirrored in racial discourse.49 What is more, in a world where terrorism has become common, and where radicalised Muslims have expressed sympathy with terrorists, the ability of Western democracies to defend their own interests is weakened by hate speech laws that make citizens ill prepared to criticise or give warnings about the nature of religious beliefs, however well-based these warnings might be. This is the singular tragedy of hate speech laws that reduce free speech on some of the most fundamental issues of public morality.

Naturally, radical Islamists living in a Western democracy will discover different mechanisms to prevent people from ‘offending’ their radical beliefs. They will find in hate speech laws a suitable mechanism to strike fear and intimidation on the ‘enemies’ of their religion. Indeed, one of the greatest ironies of such laws is that their chief beneficiaries are a small but vocal group of religious fanatics, although it is not clear why such people should deserve statutory protection from ‘hate speech’.50 Surely some of their bigotry is rather repulsive and deserves our criticism.51 Yet, because of laws of this nature even the slightest criticism may result in a person being dragged into court and charged with ‘religious hatred’.

It is for this very reason that the RDA ought to be given more clarity from the federal government. The distinction between racial vilification, being the object of the RDA, and religious vilification needs to be clearly defined. To this end, the Prime Minister’s statements only evidence the misconceptions surrounding the legislation.

Benefits of free speech Free speech does not disadvantage minority groups, nor does it favour those with more power. On the contrary, freedom of speech is a core principle of every democratic society. It is important to remember that all totalitarian governments restrict speech as a matter of course.52 Democracy naturally implies that both good and bad ideas ought to be allowed and encouraged in the marketplace of ideas.53 Thus, under this democratic principle, religious debate ought to be encouraged. Free speech ensures that every individual within society has the capacity to voice their opinion. Arguably, this principle is essential to the functioning of a diverse society.

In contrast, political elites might feel tempted to limit and restrict free speech of the media, if such a restriction serves their narrow or self-serving interests. Those self-serving interests might well be ‘the retention and accumulation of power and the financial advantage it brings’.54 As Australian Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson remarked, ‘it makes a foolish assumption that free speech favours those with power. Anyone who has studied a skerrick of history knows that protecting free speech is about giving voice to the powerless against the majority and established interests’.55 Consequently, freedom of speech ought to be viewed as a mechanism against the concentration of power.

Naturally, absolute free speech under all circumstances can never be a possibility. There are easily demonstrable exceptions whereby reasonable limits to speech may provide greater service to freedom than open discourse.

Within the boundaries of speech that should enjoy some protection, certain limited categories of speech have lower value, most notably sexually explicit speech that falls short of obscenity.56 Further, direct acts of violence and direct attacks on the physical integrity of another person should not be protected. Speech can also be controlled to some degree in times of national crisis, such as in times of war.

If speech promoting subversion must be punished, as the current government intends under the new anti-terrorism legislation, then the danger has to be great enough and its occurrence proximately close. The test should require actual present danger that explicitly urges the commission of a particular crime. Such speech should only be punished if it poses some real threat to a considerable degree and in the not so distant future.57 Amongst the most controversial questions about free speech is the proper treatment of hate speech. This is indeed a core question when considering the RDA. Many insults use coarse language in a highly derogatory way. Such insults contain language that can be deeply offensive and so have a negative effect on public communication by endangering the civility of discourse. However, the civility of discourse does not constitute a sufficient basis for general restrictions on the matter through which the free exchange of ideas is expressed. A democratic government, as law professor Kent Greenawalt puts it, ‘may forbid uncivil remarks in formal settings like the courtroom, but expression in open public settings may not be curtailed on that basis’.58 It would be undemocratic, therefore, to argue that mere verbal insults should be punished as much as actual urgings of illegal violent action. In a democracy, citizens must have the right to choose the words that best reflect their personal feelings, and ‘strong words may better convey to listeners the intensity of feeling than more conventional language’.59 Above all, a democracy requires that people must be strong enough to tolerate robust expressions of disagreement and personal opposition. Accordingly, the government may even permit such things as a ban on some words on daytime radio, and regulate the location of the sex industry and brothels, but it should not sustain any general prohibition of all forms of speech simply because they are thought to be offensive.

Of course, there will likely always be individuals making bigoted statements amongst us. To this end, one must consider that this is the basic cost of living in a free society.60 However, the proposed amendments abandoned by the government on grounds of protecting national ‘unity’ (whilst moving to toughen the nation’s security laws to combat home-grown terrorism) cannot be taken to promote such behaviour, nor do they condone racism. The question, instead, is not whether Australians have the ‘right to be racists’ but rather whether they have the right to

sue each other for racism, and where the legal bar should be set – as was observed by Tim Wilson:

This isn’t a debate about whether racial vilification is socially acceptable or not. It’s about where the law sits.

And part of the problem is that it fuses the idea of social acceptability as speech and the law, when there should always be a reasonable separation between the two.61

Free Speech 2014 • Symposium papers • 19 2 Accommodating Rights (Session 1)

Racism must be confronted and defeated not by taking legal action against people, but by reasoned and open debate. As was famously noted by Brandeis J, ‘the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence’.62 Legislated silence won’t change the hearts and minds of racist individuals. Conversation and education are far more effective tools for the establishment of a tolerant and harmonious society than trying to ban racist speech.

This point was eloquently stated by Ron Merkel QC when considering the need for racial tolerance laws in


Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 4 | 5 || 7 | 8 |   ...   | 20 |

Similar works:

«Institute for Research on Poverty Discussion Paper no. 1329-07 The Stability of Shared Child Physical Placements in Recent Cohorts of Divorced Wisconsin Families Lawrence M. Berger Patricia R. Brown Eunhee Joung Marygold S. Melli Lynn Wimer Institute for Research on Poverty University of Wisconsin–Madison E-mail: brownp@ssc.wisc.edu August 2007 The research presented in this paper stems from two reports prepared under contract between the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development and the...»

«Data and Information Security: Friend or Foe? © 2009 SmartPros® Legal & Ethics, Ltd. All rights reserved. Data Information Security: Friend or Foe? MARNI CENTOR: Hello everyone. The Association of Corporate Counsel and SmartPros Legal and Ethics welcome you to today’s webcast, “Data Information and Security: Friend or Foe?” [The instructions provided here were intended for attendees of the live webcast when it was originally broadcast. You may submit questions and comments regarding the...»

«A NEW YORK FORFEITURE: SLEEPING GIANT By Martin C. Aronchick* Perhaps no other remedy, civil or criminal, accomplishes so many law enforcement objectives as does forfeiture. The New York Legislature provided prosecutors with the means to incorporate that remedy as an integral part of a diversified and effective law enforcement strategy,' when it enacted and later amended Article 13-A of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.2 Yet, in the time since its passage, the vast potential of this general...»

«  Mississippi Analysis and Information Center Gang Threat Assessment 2010   This information should be considered LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE. Further distribution of this document is restricted to law enforcement and intelligence agencies only, unless prior approval from the Mississippi Analysis and Information Center is obtained. NO REPORT OR SEGMENT THEREOF MAY BE RELEASED TO ANY MEDIA SOURCES. It contains information that may be exempt from public release under the Freedom of Information...»

«The Ohio State University Knowledge Bank kb.osu.edu Ohio State Law Journal (Moritz College of Law) Ohio State Law Journal: Volume 21, Issue 2 (1960) The Use of Demonstrative Evidence Spangenberg, Craig Ohio State Law Journal, vol. 21, no. 2 (1960), 178-189. http://hdl.handle.net/1811/68223 Downloaded from the Knowledge Bank, The Ohio State University's institutional repository THE USE OF DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE CRAIG SPANGENBERG* There is nothing new in the principles of demonstrative evidence....»

«At the Edge of US Immigration’s “Halt of Folly:” Data, Information, and Research Needs in the Event of Legalization Fernando Riosmena University of Colorado Boulder Executive Summary Virtually all accounts of the state of the US immigration system point to its patently broken condition, with the presence of almost 12 million people without legal status paramount to this characterization. Because of several recent developments including continued and renewed interest in regularizing the...»

«DOCUMENTING THE JUSTICE GAP IN MICHIGAN Update Prepared by the State Bar of Michigan in Collaboration with Michigan’s Legal Services Corporation Funded Providers Spring 2012 (Updated: Spring 2015) DOCUMENTING THE JUSTICE GAP IN MICHIGAN1 Prepared by the State Bar of Michigan in Collaboration with Michigan’s Legal Services Corporation Funded Providers Spring 2012 (Updated: Spring 2015) I. 2012 Alert – New Developments This updated “Documenting the Gap” report looks at those Michigan...»

«Comparative Overview of European Standards and Practices in Regulating Public Participation1 Introduction I. The following paper provides a brief overview of European standards and models of public participation in decision-making processes, specifically drafting laws and regulations on governmental level only. It aims to help Macedonians benchmark the legal framework and practices against European models, and identify what elements of those models may be relevant for their context. The paper...»

«Legal Personality and the Responsibility of International Organizations Guy Henry Feil Jones A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the degree of Bachelor of Laws (Honours) at the University of Otago October 2013 To Professor Kevin Dawkins, for your patient and insightful guidance; To my family, for your unwavering support and expeditious proofreading; And to Anwen, Hannah, James, Sarah and Toby, for a fantastic year. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Chapter One: The Draft...»

«Pro bono legal services in family law and family violence Understanding the limitations and opportunities Final Report Executive Summary October 2013 National Pro Bono Resource Centre The Law Building, University of New South Wales UNSW Sydney NSW 2052 Website: www.nationalprobono.org.au Tel: +61 2 9385 7381 Fax +61 2 9385 7375 Email: info@nationalprobono.org.au EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Despite the fact that more lawyers and law firms are becoming increasingly involved in pro bono service delivery,...»

«Appendix E.1 Level I Committee Orientation Script I. Introductions (5 minutes) Welcome the committee members and thank them for agreeing to participate in the C-30 process. Have the committee members introduce themselves and state the role they fill on the committee. II. The C-30 Process (10 minutes) Briefly describe the C-30 process as the manner in which assistant principals and principals are appointed. This process is governed by the C-30 Regulation, which is a legally binding directive...»

«LegaL & generaL (PortfoLio management SerViCeS) LimiteD LegaL & generaL StoCK marKet LinKeD SaVingS BonD 5 inDiViDuaL SaVingS aCCount (iSa) Key featureS 2 INDIVIDUAL SAVINGS ACCOUNT (ISA) – KEY FEATURES What iS the LegaL & generaL StoCK marKet LinKeD SaVingS BonD 5 iSa? The Legal & General Stock Market Linked Savings Bond 5 ISA is a deposit Plan that has a fixed term of six years. As a deposit, it is designed to pay back your original investment at the end of the term. It also offers a stock...»

<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2016 www.thesis.xlibx.info - Thesis, documentation, books

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.