Brandis supports limited freedom of thought but not of deed
With the rise of
libertarianism the Liberal Party are becoming rather fond of getting back to
their supposed roots in classical liberalism. One of the problems they have in doing this is that they are
not very good at it.
In 2010, now treasurer, Joe
Hockey gave a speech to the Grattan Institute in which he lauded John Locke and
John Stewart Mill and spoke at length on his avaricious reading of everything
they had to say. While there is no
reason to doubt his reading of them, given his actions since, there is room for
considerable doubt as to whether he had a clue as to what they were on about.
George Brandis is better in
his actions on freedom of speech, but in an interview with Brendan O’Neill quotes
John Stuart Mill as his inspiration while maintaining that the government has a right to be the arbiter of what people can do:
So currently, Brandis is on a mission to reform Section 18C. He wants to remove the words ‘insult’, ‘offend’ and ‘humiliate’, but he is willing to leave in the stipulation against ‘intimidation’ of a person or group on the basis of their ethnic origins. …
… Brandis says there are two reasons he’s bent on overhauling Section 18C. The first is because it expands the authority of state into the realm of thought, where it should never tread, he says. ‘There is a deeper question here, about the role of the state. To what extent should the state be the arbiter of what people can think?
Now of course, the state is the arbiter of what people can do. The state, to use the most straightforward example imaginable, prohibits murder. It is the role of government to protect the weak from the strong. But this is about whether it is the role of government to tell people what they may think. In my view, freedom of speech, by which I mean the freedom to express and articulate beliefs and opinions, is a necessary and essential precondition of political freedom.’ …
… As another bottle of wine arrives, he returns to Mill: ‘He said the only limitation on the freedom of the individual should be when he causes harm to others. Hearing views that you find offensive or outrageous or insulting is not a form of harm. If it is admitted to be a form of harm, then freedom of speech, freedom of discourse, intellectual freedom and political freedom become impossible.’
Brandis deserves kudos for
his effort to reform the racial discrimination act, even if he fails to go far
enough. There is no real reason
why section 18C (the hurt feelings law) should not be repealed in its entirety,
however he seems to be hung up on keeping the section relating to intimidation of
a person or group on the basis of their ethnic origins.
There are already adequate
laws against intimidation in Australia which apply whether there is any
racial aspect or not, thus making this section unnecessary. To suggest that there should be a
special one to handle complaints where a racial aspect is claimed means that
the court is required to decide what an offender was thinking at the time. This appears to go against his
assertion that the state should not be the arbiter of what we think.
To have special laws,
either for or against particular racial groups is a form of apartheid and have
no place in a free society.
The problem with George
though, is his assertion that the state should be the arbiter of what people
do. He offers no ifs, buts, nor
even maybes on this.
His statement on the right
to regulate murder is a no contest, but harks back to the arguments of the religious
right that were the state not to enact the ten commandments in full, then
murder and theft would be legal.
The state has a right and
function in preventing coercive acts in society but that is where the right to
regulate human actions ends. From a libertarian perspective, we are OK with
laws that prevent murder, theft, or the bearing of false witness, but we would
have problems were it to enact them against adultery, graven images, or working
on the Sabbath. This does not
indicate that we support such behaviors, but they are moral decisions that are
not the place of the state to govern.
The Brandis/Hockey state
sees no reason to steer clear of regulating our personal behavior. The mere
fact that someone somewhere can do something without a license and without
breaking a law, is seen as a compelling reason for an act of parliament to
correct this.
Brandis is moving in the
right direction, but needs to totally reevaluate his commitment to classical
liberalism and try to go the whole hog.
No comments:
Post a Comment