Too much speech

The Human Rights Commission's symposium on free speech, under the baton of Freedom Boy ... Originally designed to reboot the s.18C reforms, the show lost its sizzle because Soapy Brandis' didn't ... Many still clinging to the hope that one day we'll get a Bigots' Bill ... Mark Dreyfus rather spoils Timbo's parade ... Kate Lilly was there at ringside 

Freedom Boy: a sad day for free speech

The Human Rights Commission's day long free speech symposium last Thursday (August 7) featured 23 speakers, including Shadow Attorney General Mark Dreyfus, NSW Senator David Leyonhjelm, former Independent Security Legislation Monitor Bret Walker, NSW Solicitor General Michael Sexton and Andrew Greste – brother of imprisoned journalist Peter Greste. 

The big theme for the day was how freedom of expression can be better protected in Australia. Unsurprisingly, the government's proposed anti-terror legislation and the Racial Discrimination Act featured strongly.

Intellectual property, freedom of the press, sedition, defamation, online harassment, political communication and an Australian Bill of Rights were also on the table.  

Attorney General George Brandis was slated to give the keynote address but a riffle of dismay swept the room when we were told he not be appearing.

Presumably his speech required some re-working following Prime Minister Tony Abbott's decision to dump Brandis' proposed amendments to the RDA.  

Unsurprisingly, given the role of commissioner Tim Wilson as symposium organiser, there was a significant expression of disappointment in this policy reversal.

The Director of the Australian Institute for Progress, Dr Gary Johns, called the government "weak" for walking away from the amendments. Chris Berg from the Institute of Public Affairs described the move as "incredibly disappointing," mournfully asking: "What is left of the [Abbott government's] freedom agenda?" 

Zimmermann: from Western Australia

Murdoch University's Dr Augusto Zimmermann was concerned that the Prime Minister backed away to preserve the government's relationship with the Muslim community, adding:

"In a world ... where radicalised Muslims have expressed sympathy with terrorists, the ability of Western democracies to defend their own interests is actually weakened by hate speech laws that make citizens ill-prepared to criticise or give warnings about the nature of certain religious beliefs."

Following this discussion, a member of the audience asked the panel whether "matters of the Holocaust" could be open for discussion.

Berg ducked that one: "Under no circumstances am I calling for a reopening of the debate about the Holocaust."

Many speakers took issue with the subjective element in section 18C of the RDA. 

Dr Johns argued that "to offend, insult and humiliate" are not serious matters. Liberal Democrat Senator David Leyonhjelm said that "some might choose to be offended in order to use their offence against an ideological foe or to receive go-away money." He noted that he chooses "not to identify as a victim" despite the offensive letters he receives.  

Dreyfus: freedom of speech and freedom from racial discrimination

A notable exception was Shadow Attorney General Mark Dreyfus. In his afternoon speech, he accused the Abbott government of having a "distorted view of what free speech means [and] an undergraduate understanding of political philosophy and human rights". 

He mounted a fierce defence of s.18C, noting:

"The human right to free speech has always been subject to the human right to be free from racial discrimination." 

Dr Spencer Zifcak of Liberty Victoria described a missed opportunity for "modest reforms", but warned against permitting racially hateful speech with just a tenuous connection to political communication.  

Concerning the proposed overhaul of Australia's anti-terrorism laws, the IPA's Berg referred to the retention of metadata as a "truly repressive constraint on free speech" – noting that the threat of mass surveillance acts as a psychological deterrent for those would otherwise speak their mind. 

Professor George Williams of UNSW described a "permissive culture" - where Australians simply trust the ASIO to do the right thing.

In contrast, Bret Walker SC said that "too much of the debate is framed in terms of the threat to free speech" - arguing that there is a difference between being muzzled in advance and being held to account for what you have said in the past.

Senator Leyonhjelm was concerned by the new penalties for intelligence whistle-blowers, arguing the proposed changes will give ASIO "immunity to be incompetent."  

Other symposium highlights included: 

• Andrew Greste spoke on the human cost of restricting the freedom of the press. He called taking press freedom for granted "dangerously naïve".  

• Reflecting on the impact of the internet, Australian Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson described the Australian Classification Board a "defunct" feature of government control over free speech.  

• Dr Kesten Green from the University of South Australia's business school [who disputes some of the scientific method behind global warming forecasts] declared the ABC "quells speech" - because commercial media outlets must compete with its advertising-free offerings and it is perceived as more authoritative.  

• Dr Roy Baker from Macquarie School of Law argued that corporations' right to sue for defamation should be reinstated in a "stripped-down" form.  He also called for a right to correction and the creation of a public interest defence similar to that which operates in the UK.    

• The High Court's present approach to the protection of communication was criticised - in particular, the exclusion of commercial and artistic speech. Constitutional expert Professor Anne Twomey discussed political donations as speech and noted that the constitutional validity of banning political donations technically remains open. However, it has also been held that simply reducing potential donors may impinge on the right to political communication, by reducing the potential for political campaigning.  

• Wilson said Australia had "a culture of complacency about human rights". Several speakers called for an Australian Bill of Rights or explicit protection of free speech within the Constitution. The President of the Australian Law Reform Commission, Professor Rosalind Croucher, said we are likely to end up with a charter of some kind. However, the University of Queensland's Professor Suri Ratnapala pointed out that North Korea has an excellent and totally ineffective Bill of Rights - arguing it is a robust living constitution that protects us.   

ALRC working on Soapy's Domesday Book

• Professor Croucher discussed the Australian Law Reform Commission's "traditional freedoms inquiry". She said Senator Brandis has requested a "Domesday Book" review of Commonwealth legislation in order to identify provisions that unreasonable encroach on traditional rights. The Australian Human Rights Commission announced a "rights and responsibilities" consultation tour, kicking off in Adelaide in September. 

Kate Lilly reporting