… out of control …

One of the rights, enshrined in the Universal Human Rights Declaration of Human Rights (ratified by Australia) is the right to freely express opinion.

Now most students of history are familiar with Voltaire misquoted as saying “even though I may not agree with you, I will defend to death your right to say it”. What would this mean practically – should we defend the rights of Muslim’s extremists, Pauline Hanson, Philip Jensen, et al to say “what they believe”

[Aside I: For those interested the actual quote was by S. G. Tallentyre who said, of Voltaire, ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, was his attitude now.’

Two similar themed quotes of Voltaire were – “Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too”, and Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.”]

Is there a limit to our tolerance, should there be limits of our tolerance. Or more fundamentally can we actually crack down on “hate speech”. Are any values non-negotiable? Are all cultures equal? On the other hand – is the collateral damage from trying to enforce tolerance worth it? There are median’s beyond our control - the internet, talkback radio. Can we control, or legislate against “thought”.

Another perhaps related case that made the news this week is about Professor Fraser of Macquarie University, who has commented on limiting immigration of particular ethnic groups. I see two responses here. On one hand to publicly respond to the comments is to give them credence, and weight, on the other to not respond is to accept them

But I think both of these miss a point – our nation is missing engaging debate – we should talk about these issues – we should allow conversation about the policies of the west. Yes, we may not agree with what is said, but we should debate our responses to issues, we should debate issues – to me that’s the greatest loss of the last 10 or so years, policy is no longer debated vigorously (perhaps it never was). The idealist in me is speaking in me again but there needs to be a greater interaction between different political persuasions.

The other issue to come out of the Fraser affair is that while I believe the University has no right to comment on what he says himself, if he labels himself as from the University I believe they then have a course of action, if I use the reputation of the company then I believe the company has the right to defend that reputation. However – as I look at the case of Professor Fraser – why not instead of suspending him – force him to defend his position. People should be free to express any view, but let us, as Hugh Mackay wrote in the Sun Herald, have debate out in the open, where facts can be weighed up against emotion, and prejudice exposed, fears allayed, or reinforced by the evidence”.

Some further reading.