By Sarah Joseph
Our federal government is committed to promoting greater “freedom”. It has appointed a “Freedom Commissioner”, Tim Wilson, and has asked the Australian Law Reform Commission to conduct a freedom audit of statutory laws. Writing in January, Attorney-General George Brandis described “freedom” as the “most fundamental of all human rights”. But what does “freedom” mean?
Brandis and Wilson espouse the classical “freedom from” the government, where human activity is “regulated” by voluntary interactions in the free market rather than by the state. Regulation by the state, in contrast, is portrayed as oppressive, inefficient, or too expensive.
“Freedoms from government” are extremely important. But there are other important aspects to freedom. There are practical “freedoms to” do the things that one wants to do. It is easier to do such things if one is rich, but harder if one is vulnerable or disadvantaged. “The market” does not fairly allocate such freedoms, as it pays no attention to pre-existing power relations and capabilities. Such an approach to freedom, if adopted exclusively, protects the strong but offers far less for others.
Governments must sometimes take positive steps to protect freedom. For instance, it enacts anti-discrimination law to prevent people from being deprived of opportunities on irrelevant grounds such as race or gender.
Race discrimination has dominated Australia’s freedom debate thanks to the proposed amendments to the “hate speech” provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act. Certainly the current law restricts freedom of speech, especially for bigots. However, it also enhances countervailing freedoms. Speech which humiliates or intimidates on a racial basis, particularly for those battered by it for much of their lives, can seriously restrict a targeted person’s perception of what they are able to do, or where they are able to go. Their freedom is practically inhibited. Yet such speech will be largely lawful if the proposed amendments are adopted, due to narrow definitions and very broad defences.
Discrimination law is just one way that governments actively protect freedom in its broader sense. Another way is via welfare payments, which prevent marginalised people from living in grinding poverty, a situation affording very little practical freedom. It will be interesting to see how the government protects this type of freedom during its time in power.
In any case, the government’s narrow approach to freedom is inconsistently applied. The government does not, for example, favour the freedom to marry a same-sex partner, the freedom to die voluntarily with dignity, or freedom from random spying by a friendly foreign government. Brandis has openly supported Queensland’s draconian bikie laws, which are a shocking assault on classical notions of freedom of association.
Freedoms often clash and must be balanced against one another. A running theme for this government is that such clashes are often resolved in favour of commercial interests. For example, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet is tightening controls over its employees, prohibiting them from criticising government policy, even anonymously and in a private capacity, on social media. Extraordinarily, employees are expected to “dob in” colleagues if these guidelines are breached. Freedom of contract, a commercial right, is being upheld over freedom of speech. Certainly, public servants are free to quit their jobs if they want to tweet or blog more freely about politics. But that isn’t such an easy choice in the real world.
Senator Richard Colbeck, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, suggests that laws might be amended to ban many environmental boycotts of businesses. Colbeck denies any consequent harm to free speech, while nevertheless arguing that campaigners “should not be able to run a specific business-focused or market-focused campaign”.
The government’s distaste for boycotts is already evident in Brandis’ astonishing reaction to the Sydney Biennale controversy. As Arts Minister, he has directed the Australia Council to cut funding to arts groups which “unreasonably” refuse corporate sponsorship. He seems to be creating a right for corporations to inflict their brands on others, or an inalienable right to sponsor, which prevails over artists’ freedom of conscience. Art is not apolitical or value-free: the best is opinionated, not cowed.
Requiring recipients of government funding to be apolitical is inimical to “freedom”. It leads to a skewed public sphere of debate: the privately funded have enormous freedom to express opinions while the publicly funded are muzzled.
A final example is Australia’s outdated copyright laws, which fail to properly protect free speech in the digital age. For example, many “shares” on Facebook unwittingly breach copyright. Recognising this, the Law Reform Commission recommended the adoption of a more flexible defence of “fair use” to copyright infringement. The Attorney-General has indicated that he sides with copyright holders, meaning no change.
Yet Brandis is misguided if he thinks his position supports business. Google and Wikipedia could not be based here. They are based in the US, where the fair use defence encourages innovation. Current copyright law is bad for freedom, including political, social, informational, cultural and commercial freedom.
Australia’s freedom debate is dominated by a narrow, inconsistently applied definition of freedom. In a development which will come to be seen as bizarre, it is disproportionately focused on the freedom to be a bigot. Real freedom is far more complex. And real freedom will be jeopardised unless that complexity is recognised and respected.
This opinion piece first appeared in The Age. Read the original here.
To receive notification of new posts, click “sign me up” at the top.
To become a Castan Centre member (it’s free), click here.
To Follow the Castan Centre on Twitter, click here.
5 responses to “Freedom: the government’s inconsistent approach”
I just couldn’t depart your site prior to suggesting that I
actually loved the stfandard information a person provide for your guests?
Is gonna be back often in order to check up on new posts
Stick by your team through thick and thin, despite the wins and losses.
With the help of online resources you can easily find several online gaming sites.
Fan evaluations of the seat ranges will give you a great idea if the tickets
you are bearing in mind are worth what you will splurge.
Great work! That is the kind of info that should be shared around the net.
Shame on Google for not positioning this post upper! Come
on over and discuss with my website . Thanks =)
[…] George Brandis has often spoken about the right to freedom of speech in reference to the draft changes to the Act. Yet he seems to have forgotten that although it is a right (and covered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights) it is not an absolute right. Most of – and some may even argue all – our rights are to varying degrees, limited. By partaking in Australian society, we effectively enter some sort of social contract with the government of the day. Freedoms clash and we agree, even if not explicitly, to have some of our rights limited so that the government can afford us other rights. An obvious example is our right to privacy, which through being online, we agree to some extent – or at least are aware of – surveillance being undertaken by the Federal Government in the interests of national safety. Similarly, the Act is able to protect our freedom to be able to lead a life free from racial discrimination and humiliation by setting limits on certain types of speech. […]
Freedom to debate history without fear is the key freedom that concerns me.
I’ve summarized my views about this most recently here: http://sydwalker.info/blog/2014/04/02/the-courage-of-an-anonymous-zionist-troll/.
Prior to the 2013 Federal election, I wrote in support of abolishing 18C here: http://sydwalker.info/blog/2012/08/09/abbott-is-right-18c-must-go/
The Zionist Lobby – uniquely among Australia’s ethnic/religious lobbies – has used the RDA to censor historical views it doesn’t like – and to get judges to determine what constitute acceptable (and legal!) historical opinions. I fear it may now be flexing its muscles to obtain even more legal support for its efforts to silence critics of its actions, views and above all of its historical orthodoxies.
This would be very imprudent over-reach – as it would necessarily throw the spotlight to the very opinions which Zionists are most keen to enforce as orthodoxies, without any fair and open debate.
It has been at least two decades since Australians experienced anything resembling genuine debate in ANY of our mass media on the veracity of the official ‘Holocaust’ narrative. That, one might think, represents quite a success for those who most care about protecting that narrative.
Have AIJAC and its allies never heard of the expression “Quit while you’re ahead”?”