David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Hansard source

I speak in support of my Racial Discrimination Law Amendment (Free Speech) Bill 2016, co-sponsored by senators Hinch, Hanson, Roberts, Culleton, Burston and former Senator Day to repeal section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. I am also a co-sponsor of the bill initiated by Senator Bernardi to remove 'insult' and 'offend' from section 18C. My bill would also remove the other two prohibitions, 'humiliate' and 'intimidate', leaving nothing remaining. This extra step is important. The articles by Andrew Bolt discussing affirmative action policies were ruled unlawful not just because they were considered to insult and offend; they were also considered to humiliate. And we should remember that state and territory laws already prevent intimidation, so there is no need for a federal prohibition on race based intimidation.

In the debate about the origin of our rights I am on the side of John Locke, not Thomas Hobbes. I believe we are born with rights and do not derive them from governments. Governments can protect our rights, and that is their proper role, but, when governments attempt to limit or remove a right such as free speech, the onus is on them to provide sufficient justification. It is not legitimate to ask, 'Why do you need it?' on the ground that you do not have it unless you can justify it. You have it whether your use it or not, the same as you have rights such as a right to life, association, justice and equality before the law.

In the case of 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act the government has provided no good reason for it at all. It is a misdirected law, ineffective and illegitimate. It inhibits free speech without achieving any offsetting benefits. It should go.

In an ideal world, none of us would entertain racist thoughts, but some of us do, and some also make racist statements that echo those thoughts. What 18C seeks to do is discourage racist speech in the hope that it will somehow change racist thoughts. It will not. In fact, it makes them more likely. Racists are prone to conspiratorial thoughts. Suppressing their speech is like suppressing flatulence. It might not make itself known in the same way, but it is still there and will erupt somewhere.

Far better to allow racist speech and to attack it with more speech. There is no shortage of people willing and able to do this. Racists are vastly outnumbered by non-racists, and it is incredibly easy to refute racist speech, which essentially relies on the idea that all people of a certain race think and act the same way. It is collectivist nonsense, not unlike the idea that all gay people think and act a certain way, or all women, or all disabled people.

We should remember that Weimar Germany had hate speech laws protecting Jews. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda minister, was taken to court because of anti-Semitic remarks, and Julius Streicher, editor of the Nazi publication Der Stuermer, was imprisoned twice. The laws made minor heroes of Goebbels and Streicher. Every time Streicher's magazine was sued—36 times in about a decade—he got media attention. A young Hitler even waited for him outside jail. Even worse, while hate speech cases were prosecuted, the majority of assaults on Jews were not: a clear abdication of state responsibility. And with what came next, there is no clearer example of the futility of laws like 18C.

Section 18C also purports to protect the feelings of those who hear racist speech. You can insult, offend, humiliate or intimidate someone about their lack of wealth, education, class, intelligence, morals, strength or beauty. But if you try to do that on the grounds of race, the law leaps to their defence. What is it about feelings about race that makes them so different that they warrant the protection of the law? Are we really such delicate little daffodils that we are fine if we are insulted, humiliated or intimidated when it comes to our ugly children, our choice of partner, our IQ or where we live, but we cannot handle offence when it comes to race? What complete and utter claptrap; ridiculous and obnoxious. And for those who think 18C is primarily there to save non-white people from insults made by white people, that is also quite racist. The implication that non-whites particularly need their feelings protected is reprehensible. In fact, the law should never be used to protect us from hurt feelings of any kind. The law has a legitimate role to save us from physical harm—sticks and stones. But, just as we learn in school, if we go running off to the teacher when the rude boy calls us nasty names, and we are told to toughen up and deal with it, so should we not go running off to the law when the same thing occurs to us as adults. It is not only childish but a misuse of the law.

Some say this is not the time to be removing section 18C, because it will compromise national unity. Actually, free speech does not have a timetable. You either believe that we are entitled to say what we think or you don't. You either believe this is a free country or you don't. You either get the first line of our national anthem or you don't. There is no such thing as a bad time for free speech.

In fact, I think it is incredibly dangerous that immigrant groups in this country are being told they will face hate and vilification if 18C is repealed. There is no reason to believe that might be true. But in any case, we are talking about speech not actions. We should not be encouraging people to believe that views and opinions they do not like and do not want to hear should be suppressed by the state. When immigrants come to Australia, we expect them to adopt our liberal democratic values. That includes support for free speech. They come to Australia, at least in part, because it is a free country. We expect them to not only enjoy but also defend that freedom. We are not going to introduce the death penalty on the basis that they had it in their former home country, and neither should we compromise on free speech just because some people are not used to the idea of hearing things they do not like. Rather than endorse suppression of that speech, they need to learn that, first, there is no obligation to listen and, second, free speech also means they have a right of reply.

Liberal democracies were never meant to be places of unity. That is a feature of fascist and Communist regimes and, dare I say it, Islamist regimes. What characterises a democracy is that propositions are put to the test of public deliberation. People who make national unity arguments in a democracy probably do not understand democracy at all. We cannot believe in freedom but make exceptions for when someone might have their feelings hurt. I—along with a lot of other people, I suspect—am sick of hearing about exceptions to freedom.

Questions of Aboriginality and Australian identity are matters of great public importance. They should be debated on the basis of evidence, without fear of being unlawful. Likewise, the Palestinian question is a matter that should also be debated and assessed on its merits. I lived in South Africa for a time during the apartheid era and I saw racism up close and personal. I hated it. I also have no time for other types of vilification. But we cannot have a situation where important matters are closed off from debate because of the potential for someone to claim they have hurt feelings. In short, it is not a bad time to repeal section 18C in the name of national unity; rather, it is a good time to repeal section 18C in the name of national diversity.

In any case, there is no evidence that to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate someone is to incite violence against that person. Indeed, what evidence we have shows the opposite effect, because words often serve to replace violence. As the law stands currently, instead of issues being debated and ideas criticised, toxic attitudes are driven underground or through the wires of the internet. This implicitly justifies handing over increased powers to Australian security agencies so that the speakers of various nasty words can be watched over by the powers that be. If people were free to speak, there would be less need for such surveillance.

Sir Robert Menzies once declared that the whole essence of freedom of speech is:

that it is freedom for others as well as for ourselves … Most of us have no instinct at all to preserve the right of the other fellow to think what he likes about our beliefs and say what he likes about our opinions.

…   …   …

… if truth is to emerge and in the long run be triumphant, the process of free debate—the untrammelled clash of opinion—must go on.

Shutting down free speech by claiming you are offended or that something should not be said or by inhibiting speech by criminalising journalism is an admission of failure to understand the whole concept of free speech. And if you do not understand free speech, you do not understand freedom.

Unfortunately, there are quite a few people in that category who do not understand free speech. I became aware of just how many when The Chaser team decided to make fun of me because of my support for the free speech of Wicked Campers, a company which has slogans on its vans that some people find offensive. The Chaser team waited outside my house in Sydney at 7.30 in the morning with a van painted with slogans based on those of Wicked Campers. They told me not to be a wowser and thought it was very funny that I did not find it terribly amusing. They also suggested that my lack of amusement made me hypocritical in relation to my support for free speech.

A few details are relevant. They did not identify themselves, which led me to advise a Daily Telegraph journalist that I had been the subject of a protest outside my house. I told them to eff off, as I was not amused at being accosted outside my home, and one of their slogans was homophobic. It appeared to me they were going to follow me into my front garden, which is why I said I would call the police.

What my critics have overlooked is that at no stage did I say they had no right to say what they did. At no time did I suggest they should be prevented by law from saying it. I did not think they were terribly smart, and what they did was in poor taste and upset my wife, but that is where it ends. Free speech does not require me to find them amusing or to appreciate what they said or even to remain and listen. All it requires is that I do not invoke the law. And can I say to Nina Oyama, Craig Reucassel, Zoe Norton Lodge, Kirsten Drysdale and the others: it would not require a lot of effort by me to find out where you live and to set up a sign outside your place which said rude things about you. If your response was to tell me to eff off and that is all, then perhaps there might be some hope for you and your understanding of the concept of free speech. But I doubt if that is how you would react. I suspect you would act like crybabies and go running off to nanny government asking for the nasty man to be shut up. And that is why I say I do not believe you understand freedom, let alone free speech, and that is a shame.

Freedom of speech is the paramount freedom. Without it, we struggle to exercise our other freedoms. With it, we can fight for those freedoms. It may be offensive, insulting and make governments and people uncomfortable, but, if this is the price to be paid for living in a society where all claims are open to question, then it is a price worth paying.