Monday 4 September 2017
The proponents of the NO vote are desperately trying to turn the debate about Marriage Equality into anything but the subject itself. Away from an argument they think they cannot win. It’s a strange debate when one side is campaigning on everything but (a lie by omission) Marriage Equality and the other doesn’t like the process but will campaign anyway.
In its raw state the issue of Marriage Equality is simply about whether one group of people should be as equal as another.
Instead, they are throwing into a simple recipe, ingredients like freedom of religion, free speech, political correctness, the school curriculum and the raising of children.
The NO group in their opening advertisement in which Cella White, one of the women featured in a commercial, tells viewers her son had been told he could wear a dress to school next year if he wanted to. Telling lies for God. Another said Year 7 students were being encouraged to role play being in a same-sex relationship.
When contacted the school in question knew nothing about boys and dresses so the advertisement was untruthful. The NO group had lied, but free speech is alive.
A couple of days later two prestigious Catholic schools, Xavier College in Melbourne and Sydney’s Saint Ignatius College, wrote to parents defending gay marriage, arguing the sacrament must evolve with the times and that the Catholic Church understands marriage stretches beyond procreation. Religious independence is alive.
That statement came days after Melbourne Archbishop Denis Hart urged Catholics to vote against change in the upcoming postal survey on gay marriage for the “health and future” of society. Free speech and practicing religion is alive.
The premise that Marriage Equality will affect freedom of religion, free speech and the raising of children is nonsense. What has been said thus far in the debate ably demonstrates that all the issues are alive and well and not in any danger.
You can even tell lies. Dennis Hart is demonstrating his right to practice his religion and the Catholic schools are showing their independence..
The school in question has repudiated the suggestion that boys would be allowed to wear dresses. So free speech and freedom of religion is alive and well. All these people have to fear is what they are being told by the religious zealots in their midst.
Tony Abbott for example says; “This isn’t just about marriage,” he told Sydney’s 2GB on Monday.
“There are lots and lots of implications here and we’ve got to think them through before we take this big leap into what I think is the dark.”
He has been promoting fear and negativity all his life. Nothing has changed.
While Labor is deeply uncomfortable with the idea of a postal survey, it has promised to campaign for the YES vote, along with the Greens, Australian Marriage Equality and GetUp.
If indeed the High Court allows the “survey” to go forward – and the result was positive for the YES campaign – to suggest the government would then include all the nasty things that the NO campaigners are suggesting is just silly and abrogates common sense. It’s just scare mongering.
There are Christians, particularly of a charismatic, evangelical, fundamentalist upbringing, who would seek to attach us to the past so as to satisfy a craving for their own literal interpretation of scripture while ignoring others.
Conservative politicians do the same because they only believe in incremental change and have a scepticism of change that in a modern society would also lock us into the dark unenlightened past.
So if they insist on making free speech central to the debate I may as well get my two bobs worth in.
I have written about free speech, hate, racial discrimination, marriage equality and the state of our democracy on many occasions and this question will not leave me:
“Why is it, in the name of free speech, that we need to enshrine, the right to abuse each other, in law?”
“European politics, philosophy, science and communications were radically reoriented during the course of the “long 18th century” (1685-1815) as part of a movement referred to by its participants as the Age of Reason, or simply the Enlightenment.”
“The Enlightenment advocated reason as a means to establishing an authoritative system of aesthetics, ethics, government, and even religion, which would allow human beings to attain objective truth about the whole of reality.”
If you were to ask the likes of Bernardi if we live in an enlightened society he would probably answer “yes”.
I’m not sure how he would answer if you asked:
“If we are an enlightened society why then do you think we need to enshrine in law the right to hate each other?
Surely you would think that an enlightened progressive free thinking society would want to eliminate it, not legislate it.
It is not a question that requires great philosophical, ideological or even theological debate. It is a black and white question. After all it is not by definition a prerequisite of the human condition.
We do live in an age of enlightenment, a period where the world has made enormous technological advances, but at the same time our intellects have not advanced the capacity to understand simple tolerance.
Indeed, if we were truly enlightened we would treat our fellow human beings, with respect love and faithfulness. We would do unto them as we would expect them to do unto us and we would strive to do no harm. We would love life and live it with a sense of joy and wonderment.
We would form our own independent opinions on the basis of our own reason and experience; and not allow ourselves to be led blindly by others. And we would test all things; always checking our ideas against our facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it did not conform to them. We would readily admit it when we are wrong in the knowledge that humility is the basis of intellectual advancement and that it is truth that enables human progress.
And of course we would enjoy our own sex life (so long as it damages nobody) and leaves others to enjoy theirs in private whatever their inclinations, which are none or your business.
We would uphold the principle that no one individual or group has an ownership of righteousness. We would seek not to judge but to understand. We would seek dialogue ahead of confrontation.
We would place internationalism before nationalism acknowledging that the planet earth does not have infinite resources and needs care and attention if we are to survive on it. In doing so we would value the future on a timescale longer than our own. We would recognise that the individual has rights but no man is an island and can only exist, and have his rights fulfilled, only by the determination of a collective.
We would insist on equality of opportunity in education acknowledging that it is knowledge that gives an understanding. We would seek not to indoctrinate our children in any way but instead teach them how to think for themselves, evaluate evidence, and how to disagree with us. We would, in our schools open their minds equally to an understanding of ethics and the history and practice of religion.
We would never seek to cut ourselves off from dissent, and always respect the right of others to disagree with us.
Importantly, we would not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.
Lastly, we would question everything. What we see, what we feel, what we hear, what we read and what we are told until we understand the truth of it because thoughtlessness is the residue of things not understood and can never be a replacement for fact.
If these things truly are the embodiment of enlightenment. How do we stack up? It is fair to say that some societies and individuals could lay claim to attaining a measure of it. For example in some countries gender equality is more readily accepted and there has been advances in education.
Overall though I think the reader would conclude that in most instances our enlightenment has not progressed much.
This is no more empathised than in our understanding of what free speech is. Are we honestly enlightened if we think we need to enshrine in legislation an emotion people already have and use, to express hatred?
There is something fundamentally and humanely wrong with the proposition. There is an intolerable indecency that suggests that we have made no advancement in our discernment of free speech.
If free speeches only purpose is to denigrate, insult and humiliate then we need to reappraise its purpose. There are those who say it identifies those perpetrating wrong doing but if it creates more evil than good it’s a strange freedom for a so-called enlightened society to bequeath its citizens.
Are we saying that hate is an essential part of the human condition?
To quote Jonathan Holmes (remember the Paris attacks):
”Let’s be clear: Charlie Hebdo set out, every week, with the greatest deliberation, to offend and insult all kinds of people, and especially in recent years the followers of Islam, whether fundamentalist or not.
Look at some of the magazine’s recent covers: An Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood protester in a hail of gunfire crying “The Koran is shit – it doesn’t stop bullets”; a full-on homosexual kiss between a Charlie cartoonist and a Muslim sheik with the ironic headline “Love is stronger than hate”; a naked woman with a niqab thrust up her backside.”
The Charlie Hebdo massacre as vile and as unjust as it was gave no excuse for repressive world leaders to lecture anyone on freedom of expression.
The sheer hypocrisy of it was breathtaking. Some of the world leaders locked arm in arm in the Paris March were from countries with the world’s worst suppression of press freedom.
To see the Foreign Minister of Egypt marching arm in arm with world leaders was two faced-ness in the extreme given that Peter Creste had been in jail for more than a year.
It’s all in the name of satirical free speech but it’s not funny if has no insightful truth.
Is this really what an enlightened society means by free speech? Does it demonstrate our cognitive advancement? Is this what well-educated men and women want as free speech or should we see free speech as being nothing more or nothing less than the right to tell the truth in whatever medium we so choose.
One has to wonder why the so-called defenders of free speech feel they are inhibited by what they have now. I don’t. I have never felt constrained in my thoughts or my ability to express them. I’m doing it now. But then I don’t feel a need to go beyond my own moral values of what is decent to illuminate my thoughts.
Why is it then that the likes of Abbott, Bolt, Jones, Brandis, Bernardi and others need to go beyond common decency, and defend others who cannot express themselves without degenerating into hate speech?
The answer has nothing to do with an honourably noble sort of democratic free speech.
Why does this demand for open slather free speech always come from the right of politics and society? They seem to have an insensitivity to common decency that goes beyond any thoughtful examination.
And we shouldn’t forget that the means of distribution for hate speech is weighted toward the right-wing media, particularly in Australia.
They simply want the right to inflict hate, defame with impunity, insult, and promote bigotry if it suits their purpose. And behind that purpose can be found two words. Power and control.
Often those who demand unrestricted free speech, do so to compensate for the freedom of thought they seldom use.
The way we presently view free speech simply perpetuates the right to express all those things that make us lessor than what we should be.
Debate, in whatever form, should not include the right to vilify. It is not of necessity about winning or taking down ones opponent. It is about an exchange of facts ideas and principles. Or in its purest form it is simply about the art of persuasion.
The argument that bigots are entitled to be bigots or that unencumbered free speech exposes people for what they are, doesn’t wear with me. It simply says that society has not advanced.
That our cultural ethical intellect has not progressed at the same rate as our technological understanding.
The fact that so many people agree with the free speech argument highlights the tolerance we have for the unacceptable right to hate each other, which to me is the sauce of everything that is wrong with human behaviour.
We will never truly understand the effect free speech has on people until we have personally suffered from the abuse of it.
And we want to make it acceptable by legislating to condone it.
Are we really saying that in a supposed enlightened society that values, love, decorum, moderation, truth, fact, balance, reason, tolerance, civility and respect for the others point of view, that we need to enshrine in law a person’s right to be the opposite of all these things?
If that is the case then we are not educating. We are not creating a better social order and we are not enlightened at all.
The fact is that free speech in any democratic system should be so valued, so profoundly salient, that any decent enlightened government should legislate to see that it is not abused.
That it carries with it sacrosanct principles of decency that are beyond law and ingrained in the conscious of a collective common good.
After all, the dignity of the individual (or individuals) within the collective is more important than some fools right to use freedom of speech to vilify another. Those who insist on unlimited free speech should realise that when they do so they also reveal their inner morality.
My thought for the day
“An enlightened society is one in which the suggestion that we need to legislate ones right to hate another person is considered intellectually barren.”