Why is a beheading threat okay but a cartoon comment not?
At a protest in Sydney’s Hyde Park in 2012, a 14-year-old boy carried a sign that said “Behead all those who insult the Prophet”.
That same boy is alleged by police to have been on the verge of a ghastly act of terrorism last Wednesday. Together with a 16-year-old boy, he was arrested last week outside an Islamic prayer centre in Bankstown, in Sydney’s southwest.
Last week, too, we learned that a cartoon by The Australian’s Bill Leak is being investigated by the Human Rights Commission for breaching section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. These two seemingly unrelated events tell a story of how free speech has gone awry in Australia.
Under section 20D of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act, it is a crime to incite violence against others on the basis of race. Enacted in 1989, there has not been a single prosecution. Not when the spiritual leader of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Australia, Ismail al-Wahwah, called for “jihad against the Jews” and called Jews a “cancerous tumour” that had to be “uprooted” and destroyed. Or when his violent words were uploaded to YouTube, accessible to young boys such as those arrested last week.
It has been obvious for years that section 20D needs to be reformed to ensure prosecutions of those who use words to incite violence. The arrest of the two boys last week was the 11th imminent attack that has been prevented in Australia. Four of them have been in NSW. While the Turnbull government is intent on passing the fifth tranche of federal anti-terrorism laws, the NSW Baird government has done nothing to address an entirely ineffective law that is meant to prohibit words that spur young boys to buy bayonets, pledge allegiance to Islamic State and kill infidels on the streets of Sydney.
There should be no right to free expression of murder; giving a young boy a sign to behead infidels ought to be a crime.
Reforming section 20D won’t stop the radicalisation of young boys but it is a start in getting the right balance on free speech and it goes to the most central role of government to keep its citizens safe. It is incomprehensible then that promises to reform section 20D by NSW Attorney-General Gabrielle Upton stand empty.
The freedom scales will remain out of kilter so long as a NSW anti-discrimination law stands impotent against those who use words to incite violence, yet a federal anti-discrimination law swings into fast and furious action when someone decides to be insulted by a cartoon.
After Leak published a cartoon that satirised family dysfunction in indigenous communities, Race Discrimination Commissioner Tim Soutphommasane touted for business, requested complaints and prejudiced his ability to consider complaints impartially.
Meanwhile the boss of the Australian Human Rights Commission Gillian Triggs, who could dismiss silly complaints, runs amok with a law premised on someone, somewhere, deciding that their feelings have been hurt by a picture or some words.
There is something dreadfully wrong with the application of free speech laws in this nation when young students at Queensland University of Technology are dragged into a three-year legal quagmire arising from a few words on Facebook.
After the students were evicted from an indigenous computer lab by indigenous woman Cindy Prior for not having the right skin colour, one wrote this on Facebook: “Just got kicked out of unsigned indigenous computer room. QUT stopping segregation with segregation.”
Prior chose to be offended by words aimed not at her but directed at QUT, claims the trauma has rendered her unable to work for three years, and the legal system condones this anti-free speech farce.
While words that incite violence go unchallenged, an edifice of opposition has built up in Western culture around words that merely offend. For thousands of years, Ovid’s narrative poem Metamorphoses has been studied as an epic tale of the creation of the world, drawing on tales from Greek mythology, exploring lust and love, violence and power. The poem inspired Chaucer, Shakespeare and more.
Now, in the 21st century, university students demand trigger warnings when Ovid is taught to protect them from “offensive material that marginalises student identities in the classroom”. No-platforming campaigns at another university stop Germaine Greer speaking.
Safe spaces are set aside for women who are offended when feminist Christina Hoff Sommers speaks on campus.
Christians are stopped from meeting in a Sydney hotel by a group of same-sex marriage activists who have no understanding of free speech. And let’s not even get started on the lunacy of cultural appropriation claims.
In Pakistan, a Christian woman and farm labourer from rural Punjab, Asia Bibi, has been on death row since 2010 awaiting an appeal against charges of blasphemy for insulting the Prophet Mohammed. Blasphemy laws and section 18C differ in two respects: the penalty is harsher and the subject of the insult is dead. But the aim, to censor speech that dares to insult or offend, is the same.
The cowering silence of our political and community leaders as the freedom scales move more and more out of kilter is an affront to our most basic freedoms.
Former prime minister Tony Abbott told The Australian this week that, compared with two years ago, it is now more obvious that section 18C is a weapon to stifle free speech.
In fact, the freedom-killing character of section 18C was clear enough two years ago to those concerned about free speech. That’s why Abbott promised to reform it, only to renege at the first whiff of political grapeshot from Muslim and Jewish community leaders. Abbott’s broken promise about free speech was not befitting of a Liberal leader and neither is Malcolm Turnbull’s determination to hide behind his predecessor’s broken promise.
Jewish community leaders need to rethink and revise their position, too. On August 10, the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies joined with more than 20 other community groups, including the Australian National Imams Council, to demand reform of the feeble incitement to violence laws in NSW. But the NSW Board of Deputies also has joined the Jewish Community Council of Victoria and the Australia/Israel Jewish Affairs Council in opposing any change to an oppressive law that protects hurt feelings. If they want to be taken seriously about the former, they need to find a more sensible position on the latter.
Muslim leaders should reconsider their equally irrational position. Muslim migrants, like every other group of migrants, surely settle in Australia to live safe and secure lives and to enjoy Western freedoms.
That ought to mean supporting change to an inadequate law that fails to keep us safe from violent incitement and equally supporting reform of a law that wrongly protects someone from being insulted.
How many more 12-year-old boys will be radicalised by adults using words aimed to incite violence before NSW Premier Mike Baird shows some leadership and reforms 20D?
And when will the Prime Minister prevent more young students and cartoonists being hauled over the legal coals under section 18C because someone, somewhere, has claimed their feelings have been hurt?
janeta@bigpond.net.au
Reader comments on this site are moderated before publication to promote lively and civil debate. We encourage your comments but submitting one does not guarantee publication. We publish hundreds of comments daily, and if a comment is rejected it is likely because it does not meet with our comment guidelines, which you can read here. No correspondence will be entered into if a comment is declined.
351 COMMENTS
Geoff
499 people listening
Not sure why there needs to be reform of section 20D. Sounds to me the problem is that police haven't even tried to use it.
Story found at Brisbane Times, today.
“Townsville youth crackdown to continue.
Townsville residents are being assured a crackdown on youth crime is far from over after an initial blitz yielded 538 arrests.
Thirty additional police were deployed to the north Queensland city for the month-long blitz, which wrapped up on Tuesday.
Ten additional police officers will remain in Townsville to target youth crime.
Police laid 983 charges, mostly relating to drug, property and traffic offences, during the operation aimed at cracking down on anti-social behaviour among the city's youth.
The second phase of Operation Oscar Merchant begins on Wednesday, with 10 of the additional officers to remain in the city to help local police tackle youth crime.
"The focus of the operation remains the same - we will continue to target and take enforcement action against those who continue to offend against the community," Northern Region Assistant Commissioner Paul Taylor said.
Minister Assisting the Premier on North Queensland Coralee O'Rourke said there would also be long-term strategies to examine contributing factors to youth crime.
Those factors include issues such as community safety, service delivery, housing, education, training and health.
"We are looking at real solutions for young people already in the cycle of offending and re-offending, and those who are at-risk of going down a similar path," Ms O'Rourke said.”
The incitement to offence-taking and complaint-lodging by Race Discrimination Commissioner Tim Soutphommasane was clearly an exercise in condescension and paternalism with regard to Aboriginal Australians. He clearly regards them as incapable of coping with criticism or personal responsibility. Has anyone of Aboriginal descent taken offence at his attitude? Has anyone lodged a complaint against him, under section 18C, with the Human Rights Commission? Why not?
18c should be able to used against the odious comments of some of those on the left. Give them a bit of their own medicine and see if they still support it.
Janet, another great article but one thing I haven't been able to understand is why 18C seems to have become a political left v. right issue. The comments by the QUT students sound fairly typical of what I would have expected from my own children and their friends. Regardless of our political leanings this travesty could befall any family and therefore should transcend politics.
Why can't those on the left who let's face it are pretty good when it comes to insulting people who disagree with them see how easily they themselves could fall victim to 18C?
I'm looking at this intolerance and moral posturing through very old eyes. It's scarcely believable we've allowed ourselves to be hamstrung by the offence industry policed by its pinched mouth law keepers. That said, while Tony Abbott has made his mea culpa, I doubt he would have been able to overcome that wall of resistance, as much on his own side of politics, to make those changes to 18C. Did George Brandis, the accomplished QC, really have a slip of the tongue? That was the time when the cacophony reached the highest pitch and it was pretty obvious that monumentally stupid comment killed off any suggestion the amendments would ever pass the Senate.
This highlights the massive problem we have in Australia with insane laws designed to muffle freedom of speech, freedom to be concerned for your country. These laws have been thought up by people who themselves are closet racists, seeking to silence to concerns of the masses.
I am offended that Tim Spottymouth touted for business, where can I make a complaint?
Triggs is a joke and if she had any sense of her worth she would resign immediately and spend a nice quiet life as a gentle caring grandmother on some remote Island out of the limelight. I wish that Senator Pauline Hanson and her Party would highlight this issue and then something might happen. She appears to be the only one listening to the average Aussie.
Has anyone made a fuss about the cartoon Bill Leake drew depicting a white man not knowing the name of his son when dropping him of at 24/7 childcare?
The reservation I have about this - Janet wants to toughen up NSW laws against free speech while softening others in the Federal sphere. Waving a placard advocating murder is a very different matter from attempting or carrying out that murder. Apart from that, what we see here is an abandonment of responsibility by politicians who are too busy playing party games.
I don't normally comment on the subjects of 18c & climate change in these blogs because there is usually a lot of "hot air" expended for little purpose and peoples positions are so entrenched that "debate" is useless. However on this occasion I am reminded of the old saying "sticks & stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me".
Maybe if we were content to live by that rule we would all be better off.
Problem is Janet not enough people read The Australian but you have nailed it again
Perfectly said, yet again Janet. You would make a wonderful PM, although the system would no doubt send you round the bend.
@Pat Janet wouldn't last long as PM as the Marxist/Left media would see that the bed wetters in her party would turf her out quick smart.
Blasphemy laws in Muslim countries and section 18C, differ in two respects: the penalty is death and the subject of the insult is dead.
Modern Australian law: "Welcome to Fantasy Island."
So Sonia was wrong to be worried ha!
The entire Islam thing is way out of hand. Hanson is demonized heavily when she says these clowns are dangerous, yet no one acts when a kid, stupid kid, with stupid and irresponsible parents prompts murder openly by way of a large sign! The kid and his parents should have been immediately deported, no past go no collect the pension, gone out. Is it open to Australians to walk in Hyde Park with a sign saying: "behead anyone who insults Christianity?" Just imagine, we would be arrested bail refused. the islams have us on the run, they have won, the Hanson factor may well save us all from beheading!
"Prior .............. claims the trauma has rendered her unable to work for three years....."
Words fail me.
@Greg The central tenet of the Aboriginal Industry is that all aboriginals are victims.
Discrimination is seen in every word (including the Constitution), and every action (don't mention Howard's Intervention). Offence taken at every turn; better still if it means dollars.
Whether it be Cindy Prior's claims bordering on the hysterical or Adam Goodes' going weak-kneed over the odd boo from brainless bogans.
Those on the Aboriginal gravy train have committed a genocide against the Aboriginal people far worse than any European settler could contemplate.
In a truly free society, such as Australia is supposed to be, why is it necessary to have any organisation akin to the AHRC? Unless, of course, Australia isn't free!
@Jefferson In a truly free society? Who told you that? Apart from all else, we now have sham political, aka "specialist" courts where juries are conspicuous by their absence, the presumption of innocence is inverted, forced confessions to non-existent crimes are the norm, and arbitrary jailings the result. Not sure how long we, the great unwashed, will be prepared to put up with it.
Well said yet again Janet, always a spotlight on the nonsense that permeates our society these days.
Janet - it is one thing to take aim at the PM, but let's face it, the key problem is none of the Labor, Greens, Xenophon or even some of the other cross-bench Senators will support it. Therefore it is a lost cause before you waste the political capital on it. Just ask Cory Bernadi - he can get a petition up - but not one supported by the majority of recalcitrant Senators that are being allowed to get away with supporting the current dud legislation. How about we take aim at the opposers in the Senate - they are the ones stopping change, and put the pressure where it truly belongs......
@Alan Then it's up to Turnbull to make the case, isn't it? And if he doesn't, it's his fault. That's what leadership means.
Spot on article Janet, the Leek article was raising the point of the terrible state of aboriginal families and the destructive affect of alcohol. The nanny state is out to shut down any criticism unless it is aimed at white conservative Australians. Highlighting social failures is a sign of a healthy society and challenges the big brother thought police of the PC left who feel that upsetting people is not to be allowed which is part of living in a democracy. Keep up the good work Janet.
Don't miss Mark Steyn's article on the same general topic in today's edition.
Section 18C is just the tip of a federal, state and territory legislative iceberg but it helps us to focus on the free speech principles that are at stake. Section 18C therefore makes a good starting point.
But let's just think for a moment about what is happening:
Our Prime Minister .. our elected leader is arguing along with Bill Shorten, Senator Di Natale, and a few unrepresentative minority groups that it somehow makes sense ...that it is reasonable...to make the free speech rights of the majority submit to a higher priority (that's how Malcolm Turnbull described it) - to argue that the cornerstone of all democracies should take second place to thepossibility that a small number of people, somewhere might feel insulted, offended, humiliated or intimidated.
The lack of logic and common sense beggars belief - unless someone whose agenda won't stand up to voter scrutiny is, in reality, calling the shots.
As the July 2 election result showed, the wider electorate will not support a political party or a leader that willingly submits to forces that subvert democratic freedoms.
From now on are we going to see our elected MP's report people with such offensive signs to Mr Soupinsane?
Will Mr S ask us to write and tell him we are offended?
Read Steyn too. Apparently these control freaks now think they can tell us what to wear to fancy dress parties.
The trouble is that so many words are being re-defined by the leftist extremist regressive. Words like (and starting with!) 'misogny', 'racist', 'gender', 'sex', 'marriage', 'freedoms', 'democracy', 'rights', 'offense', 'education', etc etc etc. It is as if we are all trapped in a dangerous wonderland where all words mean whatever you want.
@Rebecca Yep. Along with the massive debt, land mine legislation, appointment of Gleeson, yet another Gillard legacy.
18c is unsound as an authentic and enduring protection of minorities, because it is wholly dependent on political interpretation and deployment.
In other words, something that is even exercising the minds of prominent 'progressives' against 18c (e.g.: Julian Burnside) is the probability that people the left does not approve of, will assume control of the Act via the judiciary, or in Gillain Triggs' supra governmental position(s). All well and good when Soros-approved people control 18c. What if that wasn't the case?
When speech becomes arbitrarily controlled by law, the implications extend beyond the eyeline of prevailing contemporary politicking.
Problems with 18c are apolitical at their core. They do not occupy a position on our simplistic binary political spectrum. It is a genuine calculation between liberal freedom and despotism.
...Why is a beheading threat okay.....asks Janet. On what planet is this ok? It is not. It is criminal. You doubtlessly agree that it is criminal. You are getting people confused Janet.
@The watchman She is not saying this at all. Quite the contrary. Read the article again as you seem to be the only person who misunderstands this.
@The watchman There there, Watchman. Read the article carefully.
You don't have to be too bright, surely, to see that if one (insignificant) action in Qld claimed to give offence, is responded to with the full weight of Triggs' dreadful organisation, yet someone openly advocating decapitating goes unchallenged and unpunished by the law, it is logical to conclude that the latter surely must be "OK".
It would be just the same if the nonsense you just wrote went unchallenged. You would understandably conclude that it was "ok". Fortunately, you now know that it isn't.
I suspect that it is only you who is 'confused'.
@The watchman (She has obviously confused at least one person.) Janet is not saying that it is okay, but that our legal system appears to treat it as "okay" (in contrast to its heavy-handed approach to an innocuous cartoon): Four years ago a 12-year-old child was at a rally, holding a sign threatening to behead people (any who "insult the Prophet"). To the best of our knowledge, neither he nor his parents or guardians, or whoever gave him the sign, was prosecuted for that threat. Why so, if it is not okay, or is "criminal" as you say? That child, now 16, was arrested a few days ago, on strong evidence that he was on the brink of doing something very much along the lines of actually beheading someone. If our politicians and authorities applied as much vigilance to threats of beheading as they do to cartoons, such developments might be more avoidable.
Well said Janet!
Hate to say it Janet, but you are wasting your breath. The Left are too deeply entrenched in positions that oversee issue such as free speech. Our 'conservative' politicians are too weak and unwilling to fight for anything for fear of upsetting the leftist media. And there are too many people out there with a victimhood mentality that are too willing to profit from the system.
It's all rather depressing when you realize nothing will ever change.
Since critical comments are deleted, I will present a puzzle. Law 1. If a woman has so hated her husband, she has said,"You shall not have me"..... she can take her property and return to her original home. Law 2. A wife shall make herself available to her husband three times per week. One of these laws is almost 4000 years old and the other is a contemporary law. Guess
@Roger I didn't know it was three!
