Setting liberal democratic parameters for free speech

It is interesting to note the minor blogging brushfire breaking out over the prosecution of the Canadian neo-conservative columnist, Mark Steyn, for alleged hate speech comments under British Columbia's anti-vilification laws. The problem anti-vilification laws are bound to run into is the issue of free speech - the purported essence of democratic society. The introduction of anti-vilification law - legislation specifically designed to change behaviour through language and attitude -raises questions as to how to set the boundaries of free speech.

Anti-vilification laws represent a laudable attempt to protect minorities from abuse and work towards a harmonious multicultural society. However, they have failed to address the philosophical challenge posed by an insurgency of conservative commentators. Progressive thought is constantly under attack from those who oppose it. Anti-vilification law, with its focus on behaviour change and centralised control, is tarnished with images of Maoist-Soviet re-education. The sanctions offered by the laws are weak, yet the challenge remains strong. The result is a hatred of the laws, rather than the behaviour, and the false assumption that other cultures are 'protected species'. Anti-vilification laws are seen as a dangerous fetter on free speech, rather than valid laws which should be upheld by the archetypical law abiding citizen.

The idea of anti-vilification is to set parameters for what is and what is not acceptable conduct in society in line with internationally recognised human rights principles. In other words, it goes to fundamental questions of humanity. Rather than being seen, however, as 'behaviour change', instead it should be recast as 'the law of the land'. This is particularly important in the post-terrorism era, where aggrieved persons are easy prey for fundamentalists of all persuasions, and a 'free speech incident' such as an ill-advised cartoon in one country can lead to bombings in another. Failing to bridge the divides between communities, and worse, reinforcing the prejudices as justified resistance to 'political correctness' makes all of us vulnerable to bad neoconservative foreign policy adventures in Iraq, Iran (or insert Muslim country of their choice) and increases the likelihood of terrorist attacks in all corners of the world.

There is a loud chorus of concern that moderate Muslims do not take action to rein in their extremist counterparts. Yet that chorus also sings loudest about the evils of political correctness and refuses to accept that the crude remarks of Jones and his acolytes also demand action. This lack of a causal link speaks to a deeper and perhaps wilful misunderstanding of both other cultures and the nature of terrorist outrages.

Australian speech is partially protected by the implied constitutional guarantee of freedom of political communication. That guarantee means that any law that is not appropriate and adapted to preventing obscenity, libel or incitement to violence and restricts the ability to criticise government policy or access to media during political campaigns is likely to be unconstitutional. It is arguable that in the present climate, a strong anti-vilification law which inteprets say, Jones' laissez-faire response to the Cronulla text messages as worthy of sanction may meet this test for incitement, but it is a grey area.

To play their role to best advantage in the Australian polity, anti-vilification laws need to be remodelled in consultation with those very players who are at the pivot point of the problem. Conservatives and cultural representatives should be brought together for a thorough-going summit on social inclusion, freedom of speech and incitement to acts of violence, vandalism and discrimination. This would be an act of true national leadership and may provide an environment of goodwill and understanding, where issues can be rationally debated. This summit should then lay out a nonpartisan programme for uniform anti-vilification legislation, allowing for strong sanctions such as suspension of broadcasters and ultimately broadcast licences for repeat offenders. This would give the conservatives (and their media masters) most likely to be affected by law changes a hearing in the process and mitigate their concern about the threat to free speech.

The continued attack by conservatives such as Steyn on anti-vilification and other similar laws is neither liberal or democratic. However, without consultation with such parties, the resentment and martyr mentality of the 'political correctness' mindset will continue to thrive and plague our supposedly liberal, democratic and mature society.