One voice on free speech

[silverfaun]

I am not expecting a warm response to this article by the marketplace of outrage and grievance  on here but it should be read, should be considered and should be important to everybody.

AS Australia debates the repeal of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, let me introduce you to two Canadians.

One is a champion of progres­sive causes, the other is a staunch conservative. One played a critical role in setting up the first of the human rights commissions in Canada, the other was hauled ­before these same human rights commissions for writing things that caused offence to a few ­Muslims.

More important, though, is what unites them: a passionate and longstanding defence of free speech in a country that became increasingly comfortable with mothballing humanity’s most basic human right. Both men are firmly opposed to laws that allow those pursuing identity politics to leverage the power of the state to shut down views they don’t like.

Now in his 80s, Alan ­Borovoy, the  founder of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, helped push for the creation of human rights commissions in Canada in the 1960s and 70s in his then job at Canada’s Labor Committee for Human Rights. In ­recent years, Borovoy has also ­become a critic of how these commissions have overreached.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/one-voice-on-free-speech/story-e6frg6z6-1226878150991

[boris1gary]

Pro-bigotry activist George Brandis developed a promising career in politics after moving on from his former role.

[boris1gary]

Another "One voice on free speech" -  for the full article, the link below.

AHRC President: Freedom of speech not in danger — racism is the real risk

Professor Gillian Triggs

http://www.independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/hrc-president-freedom-of-speech-not-in...

During the election campaign, the Coalition promised to repeal or wind back section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, to prevent any repetition of the Bolt case. The Attorney-General has talked of a “multi-front war” being waged against freedom of speech and proposes new provisions to strengthen this freedom.

The consequence is that, for the first time in decades, an Australian Government is seeking to water down legislation protecting human rights and to reverse a trend towards increased protection for of the rights of minorities and vulnerable Australians.

Consistent with the Attorney’s concerns to highlight fundamental freedoms, he’s asked the Australian Law Reform Commission to determine those laws that breach rights.

One of the disturbing aspects of the freedoms debate, however, curiously silent, is the inconsistency in approach.

Those who emphasise individual freedoms have remained curiously silent in the face of the mandatory detention currently of about 4,700 asylum seekers in remote detention centres in Australia and Christmas Island.

To give you some human dimension to the effect of this policy, I would like to tell you about someone I met on Christmas Island during the course of the Inquiry I am holding into the detention of asylum-seeker children.

An 11 year old girl – let us call her Roma – fled from serious conflict in her home country and had been on Christmas Island for about 8 months.

She remained composed as she told me how her own brother had been killed in front of her. She remained composed as she recounted how scared she was during the boat journey to Australia of the big waves and of sharks in the water. She remained composed as she showed me the sores on her arms that won’t heal in the tropical heat, and her red eyes caused by phosphate dust on the island.

It was only when Roma told me that, during her eight months on Christmas Island, she’d spent just two weeks at the local school – and that was essentially just a playgroup – that she finally broke down in tears. She knows that to be deprived of an education while in detention is to take away not only her liberty but also her chances for a fulfilled life in the future.