Advertisement

When does a dangerous idea become too dangerous?

When is an idea, sentiment or word too dangerous to be publicly aired?

We now have a line in the sand, of sorts, following the decision by the Festival of Dangerous Ideas to cancel a lecture by Uthman Badar entitled ‘Honour killings are morally justified’.

Of course, like most lines in the sand, it is a little wonky and constantly being re-drawn after being washed away by the tide each day.

· Festival cancels ‘dangerous’ talk
· Opera star dumped after homophobic row

The cancellation of the talk is just another marker in the highly fraught and perennial debate over free speech, which the Abbott Government has attempted to put at the forefront of the national conversation.

If there is a theme to all the noise, it is that the people – not governments, journalists, lobby groups or so-called “elites” – are having the final say on what is and is not too dangerous to say in public.

"People do have a right to be bigots": George Brandis. Photo: Getty

“People do have a right to be bigots”: George Brandis. Photo: Getty

Brandis, Bolt and the 18C debacle

The attempt by the Abbott Government to amend the Racial Discrimination Act was a clear case of two competing rights: freedom of speech versus the freedom of minority groups to live free of racial vilification.

The government had in its corner the nation’s most popular journalist, Andrew Bolt, influential right-wing think tank The Institute of Public Affairs and … George Brandis.

The Attorney-General blew it when he defiantly told the Senate that “people do have a right to be bigots, you know”.

Now this is a self-evident truth. We do have the right to be bigots.

But having a privileged, white male in a position of power making such a pronouncement was an awkward look for the government.

Headlines such as “Holocaust denier Frederick Toben backs George Brandis” were not helpful either. With friends like these …

The community backlash against the proposal to change section 18C – and it did not just come from ethnic groups – has been such that many on Brandis’ own side are disowning it.

As a community, we have recognised that free speech should be restricted in various ways, from the laws of defamation to those banning incitement to violence.

It seems that mainstream Australia is prepared to accept such limitations if they believe they will protect weaker, vulnerable groups in society from those with powerful voices.

Uthman Badar has been sacked by the Festival of Danerous Ideas. Photo: AAP

Uthman Badar has been sacked by the Festival of Danerous Ideas. Photo: AAP

Honour killings

People power was also behind the scrapping of the Badar’s speech on honour killings. Not only the predictable outrage from newspaper columnists and radio jocks, but the anticipation of an adverse public reaction.

“I think it would be unfair to have a speaker unable to argue the case in the way Badar would have done without being subject to all sorts of abuse,” said co-curator of the festival, Simon Longstaff from the St James Ethics Centre.

In truth, the festival blew it with its tabloid, attention-seeking title.

This is unfortunate because it cruelled any chance Badar would have had of prosecuting a more sophisticated, subtle argument. (Very roughly, the blurb suggested this would be something along the lines of a critique of wealthy, western nations for using honour killings to condemn powerless cultures, while at the same time glorifying young people sent off to die for the “honour” of their country.)

Badar hit out at the “Islamophobic hysteria” that forced the cancellation of the event. Indeed, it would have been preferable for his arguments to have been aired, discussed and criticised.

As can be seen in the video below, Badar himself rejects the premise of free speech as a highly compromised, liberal “self-indulgence”, a tool used by those with power to oppress the powerless, and says it should be subservient to the notion of respect for others.

Perhaps the scrapping of his speech supports his point, although its title – which he insists was not of his doing – does not exactly meet his own test of “basic human civility”.

Badar is a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is in favour of a global caliphate and sharia law and, as such, holds values that are inimical to a secular democracy such as Australia. To many, including this writer, these are truly dangerous ideas.

It is worth noting that, unlike some other countries, Australia has not outlawed Hiz ut-Tahrir. Badar might have been kicked off the guest list for the Festival of Dangerous Ideas, but he is still free to express his views, which he does freely and regularly.

Tamar Iveri has been dumped by Opera Australia. Photo: Getty

Tamar Iveri has been dumped by Opera Australia. Photo: Getty

Homophobia, opera and rugby league

Tamar Iveri can obviously sing, having been hired by Opera Australia to play Desdemona in Othello.

But she has been cut adrift and deemed unfit to perform in this country because of a homophobic diatribe (“sewage”, “fecal masses” etc) on her Facebook page.

Opera Australia bowed to public pressure, raising the tricky question of whether people should be penalised for their personal opinions. Many in the arts community obviously thought so.

Opera Australia was no doubt also worried about the real possibility that her performances would be ruined by protesters.

An even more complex case was the two-week ban handed out to rugby league player Mitchell Moses for calling an opponent a “f—ing gay c—“ earlier this season.

This raises the question of the evolving meaning of the word “gay”, from happy to homosexual and, more recently, to something approximating “naff” or “lame”.

Was Moses’ language homophobic, and therefore deemed worthy of suspension, or was it merely common or garden gutter abuse? If it was the latter, is the use of the word “gay”, no matter the intent of the user, still sufficiently offensive to warrant a sanction? The NRL obviously thought so.

Racism in sport

The jury returned on this one long ago, although that is not to say there aren’t grey areas.

The language used by a 13-year-old girl last year to describe Adam Goodes was plainly racist (anyone who argues otherwise needs a history lesson), but the community instinctively saw the girl as also being a victim of sorts and she was rightly left well alone after the initial publicity.

Eddie McGuire’s subsequent foot-in-mouth prompted a relatively muted response from the AFL, which is normally steadfast on matters of racial sensitivity, but was embarrassed when a member of its inner circle, a man with a strong record on the subject, made such an appalling gaffe. This led to accusations of double standards.

There has also been an unpleasant backlash against Goodes, best explained by Jake Niall in this article.

In rugby league, commentator Warren Ryan thought the fact he was quoting directly from Gone With The Wind justified the use of the term “Old Darkie” on air, suggesting a man well out of touch with contemporary mores. This prompted an ABC investigation and brought him a stern rebuke from colleagues Francis Leach and Tracy Holmes. (Listen to Ryan’s remarks here, and see the clip from Gone With the Wind below.)

Rather than apologise, Ryan quit the ABC, while David Morrow, who laughed along with him, remains in broadcasting limbo. Again, the cry of political correctness has gone up, indicating that the line in the sand is forever shifting and, in fact, that many people prefer to draw their own.

One final word

The c-word, it seems, is now so unexceptional that it can be used in the federal parliament without undermining the national fabric, as Christopher Pyne reminded us earlier this year.

Advertisement
Stay informed, daily
A FREE subscription to The New Daily arrives every morning and evening.
The New Daily is a trusted source of national news and information and is provided free for all Australians. Read our editorial charter.
Copyright © 2024 The New Daily.
All rights reserved.