Select a year:
31 January 2005
Muzzling the haters doesn't make hate vanish
Produced by: Amir Butler - Executive director of the Australian
Muslim Public Affairs Committee (AMPAC)
Date of Production:
Monday, 31 January 2005
Abstract: The successful legal action against Catch the Fire
Ministries for vilifying Muslims is being heralded by many
as a blow to extremism and bigotry.
Advocates of such a view would have us believe that if people
are simply not allowed to speak hatefully, the hatred that
underpins their speech will somehow evaporate and we can all
welcome a new era of tolerance and understanding.
The successful legal action against Catch the Fire Ministries
for vilifying Muslims is being heralded by many as a blow
to extremism and bigotry. Advocates of such a view would have
us believe that if people are simply not allowed to speak
hatefully, the hatred that underpins their speech will somehow
evaporate and we can all welcome a new era of tolerance and
understanding.
This is, of course, well-intentioned nonsense. While the
Government has successfully outlawed the public expression
of some ideas, it cannot possibly outlaw the ideas themselves.
Although people may not be able to utter their thoughts publicly,
it does not mean that they will abandon them or refrain from
discussions in private.
In fact, when we attempt to silence ideas, it gives them
legitimacy and strength. For instance, in this most recent
case, a few nasty words about Muslims, spoken to a small gathering
by a small group, transformed an unknown organisation into
martyrs with an international platform.
Faced with offensive speech, the most appropriate responses
are to ignore it or correct it. If we create an atmosphere
where people cannot speak freely - however offensive that
speech might be - it is impossible for these ideas to be appropriately
repudiated or debunked in the public square.
With speech the only public indicator of one's thoughts,
it becomes impossible for society to learn who are the extremists
within it. For instance, we know about the extreme views of
Catch the Fire Ministries because they were able to state
in public their view that Muslims were planning to rape, torture
and kill Christians in Australia. No doubt they will continue
to hold this view, but will convey it in private: and any
other groups will learn from their mistakes and be more secretive.
It is argued that anti-vilification laws are necessary to
prevent speech that could lead to violence or crimes against
religious communities. However, most people who might hate
something do not graduate to violence or criminality.
That said, incitement to commit crimes and discrimination
on the basis of religion were already outlawed before the
introduction of these laws. These laws go further - making
it illegal to express certain thoughts which, although not
advocating violence or criminality, might inculcate in people
substantial feelings of revulsion or dislike. Such thinking
betrays a deep pessimism about the nature of our fellow Australians:
that proponents of these laws view them necessary lest the
general public be transformed into a lynch mob baying for
the blood of religious minorities.
Religion is, in essence, simply a set of ideas about the
world and how one conducts one's affairs. As religion is,
unlike race, a matter of choice, it does not need the same
legal protections. Instead, it is imperative to our pluralist
society that all religions be able to compete freely in the
marketplace of ideas. If an ideology or idea is defective,
then it will be exposed and rejected with the same efficiency
as substandard commodities are rejected in the commercial
market.
Indeed, if we must protect religious ideas, then why not
also protect all other systems of belief, such as communism,
secular humanism, or even atheism - systems whose followers
often display similar dedication to adherents of religion.
Of course, one can understand the appeal of such laws to
religious communities and appreciate why action was then taken
against Catch the Fire Ministries.
However, there remains little evidence that criminalising
"hate-speech"
eradicates extremism or builds a more cohesive society. On
the contrary, the application of such laws only gives strength
to extremism, making martyrs of fringe elements and removing
our ability to know who holds such thoughts.
With most Australians sensible enough to recognise and reject
hateful ideas, social pressure is a far more effective mechanism
for controlling such speech than law suits. It is also difficult
to see how such laws build cohesion when they provide faith
communities with legalistic cudgels that can be swung vexatiously
at their ideological opponents and critics.
People must be free to agree with each other, but they must
also be free to disagree, dislike and even hate. Perhaps this
is the real test of our freedoms.
Can it accommodate the right of one citizen to hate the beliefs
of another, or is our democracy so weak that it feels threatened
by a few words, regardless of how offensive and wrong-headed
those words might be?
Article source : http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2971
|
