The Royal Commission into Anti-Semitism has started to hand down its findings. For some reason it announced nine out of 14 recommendations but withheld on five. One can only guess at what these recommendations will be, but they will probably be aimed at stifling free speech and some pro-Zionist propaganda as well. Australian governments hardly miss a chance to put more restrictions on us.
Will more restrictions on speech make us safer? Judging by what we have had to put up with so far, the results are good at inhibiting free expression, and indirectly thought, but don’t stop violence in society. In fact, they might have the opposite effect.
Anti-vilification laws have been with us for decades now. Why have they not stopped violent crime? In recent years there has been a dramatic increase in crimes like murder and sexual assault, and of course the massacre at Bondi Beach, indicating that these laws don’t protect lives. In fact, one of the factors driving the push for this type of legislation was to stop revisionists putting forward a contrary view on the Holocaust. About the only person jailed, until recently, was the late Fred Toben of the Adelaide Institute, a revisionist organisation.
These laws do however inhibit free speech and public discourse on important, if controversial matters like immigration and race. Nevertheless, there occasionally comes along a stirrer such as Pauline Hanson. When she first came to federal parliament in 1996, she ruffled quite a few feathers. That year however, despite the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, Australia’s murder rate actually fell. And the following year, despite the new gun laws brought in by the Howard government, the number of murders actually rose.
The Howard government also introduced the “intervention” in the Northern Territory in 2007. This came about after some people in the Northern Territory revealed the extent of child abuse in the Territory’s Aboriginal communities, which in turn led to the “Little Children are Sacred” report. There were a number of positive things that came about, all of which would not have happened in a handful of brave people had not spoken out. If they had been scared off by anti-vilification laws, positive action would not have occurred.
The more restrictive the laws become, the more inhibited people will be about discussing serious social problems let alone taking action on these problems. Silence will help criminals including child abusers rather than protect their victims.
The laws we had did not stop the Bondi Beach massacre and will not stop migrants from bringing their ancient cultural prejudices into Australia. Worse still, judging from what we have experienced so far these laws will not be applied fairly, but rather as two-tiered policing. As we saw, a demonstration against the Jewish lobby in front of the NSW state parliament last year was given a “move on” order just a half hour after it began, one member of this group was kicked out of the country and another has been charged. Meanwhile we saw pro-Palestinian demonstrations near the Sydney Opera House every week for two years. Have any of the Muslim hate preachers been deported?
In fact, Australian governments have a bad record of attacking the so-called “right” including nationalists, anti-immigration groups and supporters of White Australia.
Will there be less vilification and scapegoating of white gentiles? Hardly likely.
With repression of free speech goes repression of free thought and action, if not complete brain washing. It’s part of manipulating how we think, how we act, to an extent how we live, who we vote for in an election, and making us lesser beings.
Whether called anti-vilification or anti-hate laws, they are discriminatory, repressive and undemocratic. These laws make us less free not more safe.
Roger H.