653 George Brandis and Bob Carr - united in "Hate", "Bigotry"?

George Brandis and Bob Carr - united in "Hate", "Bigotry"?

Newsletter published on 23-04-2014

(1) George Brandis and Bob Carr - united in "Hate", "Bigotry"?
(2) Brandis: "People have the right to be bigots" - "to say things that
other people find offensive or bigoted"
(3) Brandis to remove laws that make it an offence to "offend, insult
and humiliate"
(4) Bob Carr called a "bigot" for revealing influence of Lobby over
Labor foreign policy
(5) Ex-foreign minister Bob Carr rejects 'bigot' claim as book comes
under fire
(6) Why bigotry is not OK, Mr Brandis
(7) Jewish Barrister warns NSW Premier of Holocaust denial risk under
Brandis' changes
(8) Holocaust Survivor Moshe Fiszman begs Prime Minister Tony Abbott not
to change Racial Discrimination Act
(9) Australian Jews irked as Alan Dershowitz supports move to amend race
hate laws
(10) Quadrant: Existing law is measured through the eyes of the
self-perceived victim group
(11) Quadrant: When Did The Left Renounce Liberty?
(12) Brandis interview with Brendan O'Neill, editor of Spiked Online

(1) George Brandis and Bob Carr - united in "Hate", "Bigotry"?

by Peter Myers, April 23, 2014

The names might not be familiar to overseas readers. But they are very
important on the Australian political scene.

George Brandis is the new Attorney General of Australia - an Attorney
General campaigning to defend Free Speech! And overturn "Hate" Laws.
That's news, on a world scale.

Bob Carr was Foreign Minister in the Labor Government which lost the
2013 election. Previously, he was Premier of New South Wales, the state
whose capital is Sydney. He is well regarded by both sides of politics;
and, in particular, is respected by journalists.

Bob Carr has just written a book, in which he reveals that Australia's
foreign policy was (before his tenure) "subcontracted" to Jewish donors.

George Brandis declared, "people have the right to be bigots". Then,
when Carr's book was released, representatives of the Jewish Lobby
declared him a "bigot".

This word served to unite the two issues: laws against "Hate Speech",
and pro-Likud Foreign Policy, both pushed by the one Lobby. Even SBS
newsreader Janice Peterson, normally a paragon of political correctness,
connected the two issues, noting that the Jewish Lobby was behind
efforts to block the changes to "Hate" laws. And, she might have
elaborated, getting other "minority" groups to campaign too.

Visit some of the links below to see photos of Brandis in action. He's
quite a champion.

Quadrant Magazine has a special issue on Brandis' changes to Section 18C
of the Racial Discrimination Act. If you go to one article, you'll find
links to the others.

Even though the Jewish lobby comes out badly, there are some good Jews
in the story too. Alan Dershowitz, surprisingly, backs Brandis' changes
to the law. And Spiked Online - the successor to Living Marxism and LM
Magazine - has taken a leading role in the campaign against Political
Correctness. Its leadership was, and I assume still is, largely Jewish,
former members of a Trotskyist party - the Revolutionary Communist Party
- who changed their stance around the time the Soviet Union fell.

(2) Brandis: "People have the right to be bigots" - "to say things that
other people find offensive or bigoted"

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/24/george-brandis-people-have-the-right-to-be-bigots

George Brandis: 'People have the right to be bigots'

The attorney general confirms the government will go ahead with plans to
remove sections of the Racial Discrimination Act

Gabrielle Chan

theguardian.com, Monday 24 March 2014 17.06 AEST

{photo}
George Brandis: 'In this country people have rights to say things that
other people find offensive or bigoted.' Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP {end
photo}

The attorney general, George Brandis, has declared "people have the
right to be bigots" as he confirmed plans to remove sections of the
Racial Discrimination Act while ensuring the laws were better able to
deal with incitement to racial hatred.

"People have the right to be bigots you know," Brandis said in answer to
a question by the Indigenous Labor senator Nova Peris. "In this country
people have rights to say things that other people find offensive or
bigoted.

"There is no law that prohibits the incitement to racial hatred. When
the government deals with this matter the law will be in a better
position to deal with incitement to racial hatred."

The government is planning the changes, after a federal court judge in
2011 found that conservative columnist Andrew Bolt breached section 18C
of the act in newspaper articles that questioned the motivations of
fair-skinned people who identified as Aboriginal. The section makes it
unlawful to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" a person or group
because of their "race, colour or national or ethnic origin".

In a heated Senate debate, Peris asked Brandis about comments by the
Indigenous Liberal backbencher Ken Wyatt that the changes may result in
a "regression" to "bigoted views" allowing the vilification of people.
Wyatt had raised his concerns in the party room last week.

"It is certainly the intention of the government to remove from the
Racial Discrimination Act those provisions that enabled Andrew Bolt to
be taken to the federal court merely because he expressed an opinion
about a social or political matter," Brandis said.

"I will very soon be bringing forward an amendment to the RDA which will
ensure that that can never happen in Australia again."

Brandis said no one should be taken to court for expressing a political
opinion and section 18C dealt with racial vilification in the wrong way.

"People like Mr Bolt should be free to express any opinion on a social,
or a cultural or a political question that they wish to express, just as
Mr Bolt would respect your right to express your opinions about social
or political or cultural issues," Brandis said.

Last week, Bolt demanded an apology from the ABC after he was accused by
the Indigenous academic Marcia Langton on Q&A of subjecting a woman to
foul "racial abuse". Q&A's host Tony Jones apologised on a later episode
of Q&A, but Bolt said he was not satisfied with the broadcast.

"The ABC's apology did not go far enough, failing to include a specific
acknowledgement that claims I'd subjected Dr Misty Jenkins to 'foul
abuse' and driven her from 'public life' were utterly false. But it is a
start," Bolt wrote in a blogpost published on Tuesday morning.

Peris asked Brandis whether he was a personal signatory to the London
declaration on combating anti-semitism and whether he stood by his plans
to legislate effective hate crime legislation including incitement to
hatred offences.

Brandis did not confirm whether he was a signatory to that declaration
but accused the Labor leader in the Senate, Penny Wong, of making
bigoted statements.

"Senator Wong interjects, 'Yes George, you go out there and defend the
right to be a bigot'," Brandis said.

"Well you know, Senator Wong, I think a lot of the things I have heard
you say in this chamber over the years are to my way of thinking,
extraordinarily bigoted and extraordinarily ignorant but I would defend
your right to say things that I find to be bigoted and ignorant. That is
what freedom of speech means."

(3) Brandis to remove laws that make it an offence to "offend, insult
and humiliate"

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/25/racial-discrimination-act-changes-include-vilification

Racial Discrimination Act changes to include offence of vilification

Attorney general George Brandis says the proposed amendments will
strengthen the act, but the opposition says they could allow some forms
of racism

Gabrielle Chan

theguardian.com, Tuesday 25 March 2014 16.36 AEST

The federal government is planning a major revision of the Racial
Discrimination Act, removing the provisions that make it an offence to
"offend, insult and humiliate", while introducing an offence of
"vilification" on the grounds of race, and widening the exemptions for
public debate.

The draft amendments immediately gave rise to a fierce debate. The
shadow attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, said they were liable "to give a
green light to some forms of racism". The amendments will be open for
public comment for a month.

The prime minister, Tony Abbott, told parliament the government deplored
racism. "We want to maintain the red light for bigotry but remove the
amber light for free speech," Abbott said. "All of us deplore racism. We
deplore bigotry. We want all of us to be our best selves."

The proposals have the support of the conservative commentator, Andrew
Bolt, who said he was "relatively pleased" about the changes. The
Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), a rightwing thinktank, also supports
the proposed amendments.

Releasing the draft, the attorney general, George Brandis, said section
18C of the act had the effect of stifling public discussion and had
resulted in censorship, as had been shown in the Bolt case.

"Those three words – offend, insult, humiliate – describe what has
sometimes been called hurt feelings," Brandis said. "It is not, in the
government's view, the role of the state to ban conduct merely because
it might hurt the feelings of others. Our democracy should be robust
enough for that."

Brandis is seeking to keep the existing provision that makes it an
offence to intimidate, but to narrow the definition to "intimidate means
to cause fear of physical harm".

"To intimidate a person is to cause them to be fearful," Brandis said.
"That is an entirely different state of mind. People are right to go
about their daily lives free of fear, including fear borne of
intimidation because of their race, or colour, or national or ethnic
origin."

The changes repeal 18B, C, D and E. They significantly widen the
exemptions under 18D, removing the provisions that require public debate
to be done "reasonably" and in "good faith".

Brandis said the overall changes would strengthen the act by including
vilification as an offence. "One of the misconceptions in this debate is
that the Racial Discrimination Act prohibits racial vilification. It
does not," Brandis said.

"The term [vilification] is not used in the act; 18C does not cover
incitement to racial hatred, which is the most commonly-accepted meaning
of the term 'racial vilification'."

Dreyfus said the amendments reflected the results of the attorney
general's views that "people have the right to be bigots".

"The changes reflect a significant watering down of the act that has
served Australians well," he said.

Dreyfus said that by narrowing the definition of vilification in 18C and
broadening the exemptions in 18D, the government risked allowing the
kind of speech such as Holocaust denial, which was the basis of cases
such as Jones v Toben.

Liberal backbencher Ken Wyatt, who has previously sounded a warning in
the Coalition party room about amendments to the Racial Discrimination
Act, said he hoped the changes would encourage people to give the
government feedback on the matter.

"It doesn't pass all hurdles. It provides the opportunity for me to
explore the changes, along with others," Wyatt said.

Bolt said he was "relatively pleased" by the proposed changes. "I am
against racism and I am against limitations to free speech, so you have
to say I am relatively pleased," he said.

A director of the IPA, Simon Breheny, said that while he would have
preferred a full repeal of section 18C, the government's proposal went
95% of the way.

Colin Rubenstein, executive director of the Australia/Israel and Jewish
Affairs Council, said Brandis had gone too far and and failed to
adequately safeguard important rights and values.

"To pass the amendments as they stand would risk emboldening racists,
threatening the quality of life of ethnic minorities in Australia and
seriously straining the fabric of our social cohesion and harmony,"
Rubenstein said.

An early analysis of the RDA changes by Daniel Meyerowitz-Katz of the
AIJAC took issue with the limited definitions of "vilify" and
"intimidation". {AIJAC = Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council -
Peter M.}

The council was also concerned about subsection three of the proposal
which seeks to codify a "community standards" test for any cases, that
specifically refers to "the standards of an ordinary reasonable member
of the Australian community" as opposed to "the standards of any
particular group within the Australian community".

"This suggests that there is a class of 'ordinary' Australians who are
not members of 'any particular group' and, by implication, that members
of particular groups might not be 'ordinary' Australians," Katz said.

He also raised concerns about the proposal to replace 18D which exempts
any communication "in the course of participating in the public
discussion of any political, social, cultural, religious, artistic,
academic, or scientific matter".

"Unlike 18D or defamation defences such as 'fair comment', the proposed
provision does not require any degree of factual accuracy or
reasonableness in order for an act to be exempt.

"Consequently, any communication at all which purports to be a part of a
public discussion on essentially any issue would be exempt. In virtually
all previous decisions under 18C, the respondent could have claimed to
have been engaging in public discussion on one of the included categories."

The courts have interpreted the law to mean that a "mere slight" is not
unlawful - it needs to be serious racial abuse. The laws were
controversial from the beginning, with then opposition leader John
Howard opposing them.

The government's changes would get rid of "offend, insult and
humiliate", which the government says amounts to "hurt feelings", which
shouldn't be outlawed in a rowdy democracy. It keeps "intimidate", but
defines it narrowly as causing fear of physical harm, with no mention of
psychological harm. It introduces a provision against vilification,
defined as inciting hatred.

The key is that the emphasis switches from the impact racial hatred has
on its victims to whether it causes fear or incites racial hatred in
others. Even if you do intimidate or vilify someone on the basis of
race, there is a broad exemption for anything "communicated in the
course of participating in the public discussion of any political,
social, cultural, religious, artistic, academic or scientific matter".
The requirement to be reasonable and in good faith are gone. Prime
Minister Tony Abbott told The Conversation that the proposals would
produce "a stronger prohibition on real racism, while maintaining
freedom of speech in ordinary public discussion".

Soutphommasane, whose job is to oversee the laws, begs to differ. "This
would involve a very dramatic change to the law … it severely weakens
the protections that exist against racial vilification and may have the
effect of encouraging a minority of the population that they can
racially abuse and harass someone with impunity."

His boss, Gillian Triggs, believes the exemptions are so broad that "it
is difficult to see any circumstances in public that these protections
would apply".

Holocaust denier Fredrick Toben was found to have breached the Racial
Discrimination Act.

There would not be another Andrew Bolt case. Judge Mordecai Bromberg
found that Bolt couldn't rely on the free speech exemption because he
did not act reasonably and in good faith, and that his articles
contained "gross inaccuracies". Even if it was found that his articles
caused others to be fearful or incited racial hatred, they would be
exempt because they were part of public debate.

Critics are bewildered as to why these changes are a priority. The vast
majority of complaints to the Human Rights Commission are settled
through mediation, with only about 3 per cent reaching court. Academics
Luke McNamara and Kate Gelber have recently completed research on the
impact of hate speech laws on public discourse in Australia. Of 3788
vilification cases lodged nationally under federal and state laws
between 1989 and 2010, just 68 (or 1.8 per cent) were referred to a
tribunal or court. Of these, just 37 (54 per cent) were successful.

"Our headline conclusions was that the claim that there is a diminution
of free expression in our society [because of the laws] is not
supported," said Professor McNamara. "The claim that these laws are a
magical solution to racism isn't really supported, either. Most people
who experience racism are never going to invoke these laws but take
comfort from their existence."

The director of the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law at Monash
University, Professor Sarah Joseph, was uncomfortable that under the
existing law "offend" and "insult" could restrict free speech.

"There is no human right to be free from offence and insults, even on
the basis of one's race," she said.

But the government went much further. The definition of intimidation was
now too narrow, Joseph said. And the shift in the standard to be applied
when deciding if something is intimidating or vilifying becomes that of
a reasonable member of the general community rather than a member of the
targeted group. That misunderstood how severely some people could be
impacted.

"But the biggest problem is the exemption which seems to remove all
statements made in public debate," she said. "There's no requirement for
reasonableness or good faith. It's an extremely broad exemption."

Joseph believes that only racial abuse such as neighbourhood disputes -
where a neighbour hurls racial insults at another over a fence, for
instance - might be caught. Anything to do with public debate, unless it
incites hatred in another or intimidates to the point of causing fear of
physical harm, would not be unlawful. Virtually nothing that appeared in
the media, including blogs, was likely to fall foul of the law.

Peter Wertheim understands the free speech arguments, but says what is
most upsetting about anti-Semitism is not that somebody writes that the
Holocaust never happened. It's the smear, the insinuation about what
Jews are like, the dehumanising of individuals. There's a role for the
law in that, he says.

"To be the object of racism is to be depersonalised, to be made an
abstraction. I think people who have not been the objects of racism
often don't understand that. I don't think the government understands it
either." HOW OLD CASES WOULD FARE UNDER THE NEW LAW

THE LAW NOW

Under the Racial Discrimination Act, it is unlawful to do something that
is reasonably likely to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate"
someone because of their race or ethnic origin (Section 18C). There is a
free speech exemption if you have acted reasonably and in good faith and
if it is an artistic, academic or scientific work or about a matter of
public interest. (Section 18D)

Critics say the law is too broad, particularly the words "offend" and
"insult", and has the potential to restrict free speech on contentious
issues.

THE PROPOSED NEW LAW

The government's "exposure draft" would get rid of "offend, insult and
humiliate" but "intimidate" would stay, defined as causing fear of
physical harm. A new provision would outlaw racial vilification, defined
as inciting hatred. The need to act reasonably and in good faith is
gone, with the free speech exemption applying to "public discussion of
any political, social, cultural, religious, artistic, academic or
scientific matter".

Critics say the amendments go too far and would fail to protect
vulnerable groups from racial hatred, particularly given the broad
exemption for racial abuse if it was done as part of public discussion.

THE IMPLICATIONS

The director of the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, Professor Sarah
Joseph, assesses how the following three cases would fare under the new
draft laws.

EATOCK v BOLT 2011

Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt was found to have breached section 18C
in two articles suggesting prominent fair-skinned Aborigines had falsely
identified as indigenous to claim benefits available only to Aboriginal
people. The judge ruled Bolt could not rely on the exemption for a
matter of public interest because he had not acted reasonably or in good
faith, and his articles contained gross inaccuracies.

Professor Sarah Joseph: Bolt would not have lost the case. His articles
were found to have been likely to intimidate, but intimidation has been
narrowed to mean "cause fear of physical harm" and it is unlikely that
the articles would make someone fear physical harm. It is also unlikely
they would be found to vilify fair-skinned Aboriginal people, as it
would be hard to establish they would cause third parties to hate that
group. In any case, the defence for anything written as part of public
discussion is so broad it seems to "save" almost any column written in
the mainstream media, and probably any blog.

CAMPBELL v KIRSTENFELDT 2008

In what started as a neighbourhood dispute in a town outside Perth,
Mervyn Kirstenfeldt was found to have breached section 18C by repeatedly
calling his neighbour Kaye Campbell, an Aboriginal woman, names such as
"Gin", "nigger", "coon" "lying black mole c---" and telling her to go
"back to the scrub where you belong". The abuse was often made in the
presence of Campbell's family and friends.

Joseph: This could be perceived as intimidating or vilifying. The
repetition could make an ordinary person fear physical harm. The abuse
could be interpreted as vilifying, though it is unlikely Campbell's
friends and family would be turned against her. The public discussion
defence would not apply, as the abuse is not in the context of political
or social commentary. Such "neighbourhood" abuse would still be against
the law.

JONES v TOBEN 2002

In the first case to do with racial abuse on the internet, Holocaust
denier Fredrick Toben was found to have breached the act and was ordered
to remove offensive material from the web. Toben expressed doubt that
the Holocaust ever happened, said it was unlikely there were gas
chambers at Auschwitz, and claimed Jewish people, for reasons including
financial gain, had exaggerated the numbers of Jews killed.

He was found to have lacked good faith because of his "deliberately
provocative and inflammatory" language.

Joseph: Toben would likely not be found in breach of the new law. It is
unlikely his speech intimidates so as to make people afraid for their
physical, as opposed to psychological, wellbeing. It could however be
interpreted as vilification. Holocaust denial indicates that the Jews
have concocted the Holocaust for self-serving purposes, a classic
anti-Semitic idea that has historically provoked hatred against Jewish
people.

However, Toben would likely be saved by the exemption, as he could claim
his website was published as part of political, social, cultural, or
academic discussion.

There is no requirement the discussion be reasonable or be conducted in
good faith.

(4) Bob Carr called a "bigot" for revealing influence of Lobby over
Labor foreign policy

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/04/10/carr-comments-prompt-bigot-claim

10 APR 2014 - 4:44PM

Carr comments prompt 'bigot' claim

Former Foreign Minister Bob Carr has rejected accusations he's
prejudiced, and insists he's a friend of Israel and Australia's Jewish
community.

By Phillippa Carisbrooke

Source World News Radio UPDATED YESTERDAY 6:07 PM (Transcript from World
News Radio)

Former Foreign Minister Bob Carr has rejected accusations he's prejudiced.

And insisted he is a friend of Israel and Australia's Jewish community.

It comes after comments he wrote about the pro-Israel lobby.

Phillippa Carisbrooke reports.

Comments by Bob Carr in a new book have led the secretary of the
Australia-Israel Parliamentary Friendship Group to call him a "bigot".

In the book, the former Foreign Minister complains about what he calls
an "unhealthy" level of influence which the pro-Israel lobby in
Melbourne had over Julia Gillard and her cabinet.

The Melbourne-based Australia-Israel and Jewish Affairs Council denies
having unique access to the then Prime Minister, saying it's put its
concerns to a succession of leaders in the same way.

Chairman of the Council, Mark Leibler, says its "flattering" but
"ridiculous" that Mr Carr thinks his organisation had "extraordinary"
influence.

"It's a figment of his imagination. I mean the former Prime Minister is
an independent person able to make up her own mind about things."

The Executive Council of Australian Jewry also rejects Mr Carr's claim
the pro-Israel lobby had an unhealthy level of influence on Ms Gillard's
policies towards Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Its president, Robert Goot, says Mr Carr never shared his concerns with
his organisation.

"He never took the trouble or time to express those views, or any
similar views, to us on the two occasions we met with him when he was
Foreign Minister."

Robert Goot says lobbying is part of the democratic process, and people
shouldn't be criticised for putting their views across.

"There's nothing clandestine about this. When the Jewish community has
an issue which affects the federal government, it makes representations
to the federal government and the opposition. We do it very publicly
when the occasion arises."

The Australia Palestine Advocacy Network says the pro-Israel lobby does
have far greater access to the government and opposition than
pro-Palestinian groups.

The Network's president, Bishop George Browning, says that's down to
resources.

"They offer an extraordinary number of trips for example to Israel in
order for people to be brought up to speed with the Israeli point of
view. And I understand more parliamentarians receive trips to Israel
than any other comparable country."

The secretary of the Australia-Israel Friendship Group in federal
parliament, Labor M-P Michael Danby, has slammed Bob Carr's remarks.

Speaking to the ABC, he labelled Mr Carr a "bigot".

"No lobby in Australia has that kind of influence I understand. It's
laughable but I suppose in the current climate, as (federal
Attorney-General) George Brandis says, it's OK to be a bigot."

Mr Carr has rejected the accusation, saying his political record shows
he's a friend of Israel.

"I was president of Labor Friends of Israel for a long time. As a young
politician I stood on the back of a truck outside the entertainment
centre as part of a Jewish community protest at the Russian Ballet
because of the treatment of Soviet Jews. I have spoken at Holocaust
memorials."

The former New South Wales Premier and Senator has also defended his
opposition to expansion of Jewish settlements in the occupied
Palestinian territories, and his support for improved Palestinian status
at the United Nations.

Mr Carr denies these positions were influenced by the rising importance
of Muslim communities in some electorates.

"The position I was advocating to the government can't be attributed to
some sort of crude pursuit of votes from ethnic communities. It clearly
had merit."

The chairman of the Australia-Israel and Jewish Affairs Council says Mr
Carr has been careful with his words, stressing he's talking about the
pro-Israel lobby, not the Jewish lobby.

Mark Leibler says that distinction is likely to be lost on those who
hate Jews.

He has however dismissed suggestions Mr Carr is a bigot.

"Some of his statements are you know, unfortunate, and will play into
the hands of anti-Semites and bigots. But Bob Carr, no, Bob Carr's not a
bigot."

George Browning from the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network agrees.

"During his time as Foreign Minister he, as far as I can see, has done
his best to represent as fairly as he can the interest of all racial
groups, in particular minority groups and particularly oppressed group.
And if you stand up for an oppressed group and are called a bigot then
someone doesn't know what the word means."

(5) Ex-foreign minister Bob Carr rejects 'bigot' claim as book comes
under fire

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/exforeign-minister-bob-carr-rejects-bigot-claim-as-book-comes-under-fire-20140410-36g41.html

Matthew Knott

The Age, Melbourne

April 11, 2014

Bob Carr has denied being self-indulgent, a snob or a bigot following
attacks from former Labor colleagues over the publication of a diary
recounting his 18 months as foreign minister.

Pro-Israel leaders have also dismissed Mr Carr's claims they wielded
extraordinary influence  over former prime minister Julia Gillard as
scurrilous gossip  and a  figment of his imagination .

In his book, Diary of a Foreign Minister, Mr Carr suggests Ms Gillard
supported Israel in a controversial United Nations vote on Palestinian
recognition because Australian foreign policy had been  subcontracted
to Melbourne-based pro-Israel group the Australia/Israel & Jewish
Affairs Council.

The member for Melbourne Ports Michael Danby, who is Jewish and a strong
supporter of Israel, told ABC radio:  No lobby in Australia, I
understand, has that kind of influence.

  But I suppose, in the current climate, as [Attorney-General] George
Brandis says, it's OK to be a bigot.

Mr Carr said the accusation of bigotry was  appalling  given he is a
former president of Labor Friends of Israel and had previously named a
book by an Auschwitz survivor as the most important book of the past 100
years.

AIJAC chairman Mark Leibler said Mr Carr's claims were a  figment of his
imagination  and were calculated to sell books. Executive Council of
Australian Jewry member Peter Wertheim said:  Every community in the
country and other interest groups advocate their views to government -
that's the stuff of everyday democracy. Julia Gillard was very much her
own woman with firm and long-standing views [on Israel].

  The idea anyone in Melbourne could control those views is fairly
ridiculous.

A spokesman for Ms Gillard declined to comment on Mr Carr's book.

Other Victorian Labor MPs, including David Feeney and Anthony Byrne,
went public to accuse Mr Carr of self-indulgence and breaching cabinet
confidentiality.

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said Mr Carr's book risked damaging
Australia's international relationships.  While it is tempting to
ridicule the arrogant foolishness of this egotistical self-promoter, his
book carries a real risk of damaging Australia's standing among
currently serving world leaders,  she said.

Mr Carr defended the level of detail in the book, saying:  I make no
apologies for providing people with a darn good story about how
Australian foreign policy is made, about the pressures on a foreign
minister, about how the whole system works.

Profits from the book will be donated to Interplast, a charity that
works to improve the lives of people with medical conditions such as
cleft palate or burn scars.

Mr Carr said he was good-humoured about widespread ridicule over his
strict exercise regime and complaints about having to fly business
class,  inedible  airline food and a lack of English subtitles on an
in-flight screening of a German opera.

  I'm having a lot of fun with the self-parody and the jokes I've got in
the book,  he said.

In the book Mr Carr writes that he had shifted support from Ms Gillard
to Kevin Rudd by March 2013 - even though he publicly denied Fairfax
Media stories reporting this at the time.

Mr Carr told 2GB on Thursday he had to reject the reports because he was
in Washington for important meetings and it would not have been in the
national interest for him to resign.

(6) Why bigotry is not OK, Mr Brandis

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/why-bigotry-is-not-ok-mr-brandis-20140325-35f74.html

by Mariam Veiszadeh

Sydney Morning Herald

March 25, 2014

Whether it's in their treatment of asylum seekers, their policy of
secrecy or their intention to amend the Racial Discrimination Act, it
seems that the Abbott government is intent on destroying Australia's
moral compass.

Attorney-General, George Brandis, defending the Government's intention
to repeal s18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, told the Senate Monday
that "people have the right to be bigots". It appears that in George
Brandis's world view, bigots are the persecuted minority whose rights
need to be staunchly defended.

Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act makes it unlawful to do an
act that "is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend,
insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people" on
racial or ethnic grounds." It is followed by s18D (which is conveniently
ignored by many conservative commentators) which seeks to balance the
objectives of s18C with the need to protect justifiable freedoms of
speech and expression.

The provisions seek to offer legislative protection to the most
vulnerable and marginalised members of our society - our indigenous
population, culturally and ethnically diverse communities and religious
minority groups.

Whilst in the past politicians, particularly in the lead up to an
election, have sought to indirectly play on the public's fears, Senator
Brandis's comments have taken it to a whole new level. This is the first
time that I can recall, where a Senior Minister has directly endorsed
(and thereby encouraged) having bigoted views. There's no reading
between the lines here - Brandis has specifically said that "people have
the right to be bigots, you know." This is somewhat unprecedented.

What's concerning is that these remarks are not coming from some rogue
back bencher (such as Senator Cory Bernardi), but rather from our
nation's top law maker.

As Western nations, we pride ourselves on emerging out of the darkness
of our tainted histories, it seems however with its recent track record,
the Abbott Government is hell bent on pulling us back into the dark era.

Whilst Abbott and Brandis keep reiterating that people have a right to
make comments that upset or offend people, it is important to consider
the position of the individual who makes the comments in question.
Central to the debate is the fact that there is almost always a power
imbalance between the person(s) who make the offending remarks and those
whom the remarks are aimed at. This is clear when you take a look at the
groups of people who have sought protection under s18C. They mostly come
from marginalised, minority communities and they do not, under any
stretch of the imagination, stand on an equal footing with their
perpetrators.

The simple, perhaps controversial truth is this - white middle aged men
in powerful positions are not the ones who are at the top of the list of
people who regularly face discrimination. So why is it then that the
proposed amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act seek to protect
this category of people?

History has shown us that where racial vilification is publicly
sanctioned by those in high office, mere words can have a powerful
ability to incite hatred and violence.

As with any democratic right, freedom of speech should be tempered with
responsibility and it is counter productive if those who continously
spew hateful and misleading vitriol are the very individuals who
continue to thrive from the protection that freedom of speech offers.

We should be very afraid when our top law maker seems more passionate
about protecting the rights of bigots than the rights of the most
marginalised members of our society.

Mariam Veiszadeh is a lawyer, community advocate and Welcome to
Australia ambassador.

(7) Jewish Barrister warns NSW Premier of Holocaust denial risk under
Brandis' changes

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/barrister-warns-barry-ofarrell-of-holocaust-denial-risk-under-george-brandis-changes-20140406-366r8.html

Barrister warns Barry O'Farrell of Holocaust denial risk under George
Brandis' changes

Sean Nicholls

Published: April 7, 2014 - 3:00AM

Changes to the Racial Discrimination Act proposed by federal
Attorney-General George Brandis would "open the door to Holocaust
deniers", allowing them to publish their claims with impunity, legal
advice to NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell says.

The opinion by leading barrister Arthur Moses, SC, says the changes
would "radically narrow the protection that Australian citizens will
receive from racial vilification" and "undermine the very purpose" of
the act.

"A new legislative right to engage in racial vilification in the course
of public discussion would, for instance, open the door to Holocaust
deniers to publish their opinions on websites and on social media in the
course of 'public discussion'," he writes in the opinion handed to Mr
O'Farrell on Friday.

Senator Brandis plans to abolish section 18C of the Racial
Discrimination Act, which makes it unlawful to publicly "offend, insult,
humiliate or intimidate" a person. Section 18D, which provides
protections for freedom of speech, will be removed.

The act was used to prosecute News Corp columnist Andrew Bolt over an
article he wrote attacking "fair-skinned" Aborigines.

But, in his opinion, Mr Moses cites the 2003 prosecution of Fredrick
Toben over publication of his view that there were "serious doubts" the
Holocaust took place and some Jewish people exaggerated the number of
Jews massacred during World War II for improper reasons, including
financial gain.

The full bench of the Federal Court found Dr Toben's comments were not
made in "good faith" - an exception to prosecution in the existing act.

The proposed new law protects comments made "in the course of
participating in the public discussion of any political, social,
cultural, religious, artistic, academic or scientific matter".

"This exception is wide enough to allow people to publish anti-Semitic
material if they demonstrate that they were participating in public
discussion," Mr Moses says.

He says Dr Toben's comments "would be allowed under the new law, which
has no 'good faith' exception".

Mr O'Farrell sought the advice from Mr Moses after comments by Senator
Brandis that people "do have a right to be bigots".

During debate in the Senate he declared that "in a free country, people
do have rights to say things that other people find insulting or
offensive or bigoted". The comments prompted protests.

Mr O'Farrell responded last week by publicly declaring that bigotry
"should never be sanctioned, whether intentionally or unintentionally"
and that "vilification on the grounds of race or religion is always wrong".

The proposed changes have also been criticised by Australian Human
Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs.

Senator Brandis has not denied that he was forced to water down the
original proposal for the bill by his cabinet colleagues.

One minister previously said, "George has really drunk the right-wing
Kool-Aid" while a second minister said the original proposal had been
"much worse".

Senator Brandis is out of the country. A spokesman did not respond to a
request for comment.

This story was found at:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/barrister-warns-barry-ofarrell-of-holocaust-denial-risk-under-george-brandis-changes-20140406-366r8.html

(8) Holocaust Survivor Moshe Fiszman begs Prime Minister Tony Abbott not
to change Racial Discrimination Act

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/545399/20140328/racial-discrimination-act-tony-abbott-holocaust-moshe.htm

By Anne Lu | March 28, 2014 2:20 PM EST

Prime Minister Tony Abbott's plans to change the Racial Discrimination
Act have been met with criticisms from various groups. Holocaust
Survivor Moshe Fiszman pleads the country's leader to abandon his
proposed changes, saying that he would be taking away their freedom in
doing so.

Reuters

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott tells parliament in Canberra that
satellite imagery has found two objects possibly related to the search
for missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370, in this still image taken
from video March 20, 2014. Australian search aircraft are investigating
two objects spotted by satellite floating in the southern Indian Ocean
that could be debris from a Malaysian jetliner missing with 239 people
on board, Abbott said on Thursday. REUTERS/Australian Broadcasting
Corporation via Reuters TV

The Opposition and Greens have opposed the proposal, saying that the
changes will just make it legal for bigotry to rule the country.

Mr Abbott claimed that the changes are necessary to remove the
restrictions on "free speech," and that they also include strong
prohibitions on racial vilification.

Mr Fiszman, a 92-year-old Holocaust survivor who spent the Second World
War in Nazi concentration camps, begged to differ.

He penned an open letter to the PM, asking him to abandon his plans to
change the RDA.

"You might think you are increasing freedom, but let me assure you that
you will be taking away the freedom of communities such as mine. The
freedom to live without hatred and without lies being told about us," he
wrote.

"That is why every single ethnic community is against this change. Some
39 communities have protested against it. Australia is a beautiful
country because, like the United States, we are all migrants – not
minorities. But if this law gets up, we will be made to feel like
minorities.

"You might think you are increasing freedom, but this change will hurt
disadvantages, underprivileged groups, like the Aborigines who regularly
visit the Jewish Holocaust Museum."

He continued, "I came to this country because it was the furthest away
from Europe I could get. Also, I had four years behind bars as a refugee
after the war because nobody wanted me, so I had plenty of time to check
out what Australia was made of. I researched its constitution and so
forth, and I liked it.

"We are quite happy with the freedom we have got at the moment. There is
nothing wrong with it. For God's sake, you can do whatever you like in
this country. We are even freer than in the United States.

"What do they want to change this law for? If you start playing around
with it, where will it end up? Who is it giving the freedom to? They
want the right-wing loonies to have a free rein so they can write and
say whatever they like and get away with it scot-free. Holocaust deniers
like the Adelaide Institute."

Mr Fiszman was the only member of his family to survive after suffering
in various Nazi concentration camps, including the Auschwitz-Birkenau
and Dachau.

"This is my opinion as a survivor, the opinion of a man who went through
living hell for five-and-a-half years, on death row for 24 hours a day.
I am dead against it. Don't let them touch the freedom of the people in
the country.

"At the moment I am an Australian. I am not defined as being a Jew or a
Catholic or a Protestant. But if these laws go through, we will end up
as members of minority groups. Then God help us."

He concluded his letter with: "I love this country. There is no other
country in the world as free as ours. Lease don't change the law, Mr
Abbott."

Mr Fiszman's letter has been obtained by The New Daily.

(9) Australian Jews irked as Alan Dershowitz supports move to amend race
hate laws
From: ReporterNotebook <RePorterNoteBook@Gmail.com> Date: Tue, 8 Apr
2014 17:16:07 -0400 Subject: Local Jews irked as Dershowitz weighs in on
Australia race debate

http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2014/04/08/local-jews-irked-as-dershowitz-weighs-in-on-australia-race-debate

Local Jews irked as Dershowitz weighs in on Australia race debate

Prominent U.S. civil liberties lawyer supports move to amend race hate
laws, even if it leads to increase in anti-Semitic statements.

Haaretz

Prominent U.S. civil liberties lawyer Alan Dershowitz has weighed in on
the fierce debate here over government proposals to restrict the
country's race hate laws, irking Jewish leaders who are waging a
concerted campaign to retain legislation they have successfully used to
litigate against Holocaust deniers, anti-Semites and religious extremists.

Dershowitz, whose books include "The Case for Israel," argued in The
Australian last week that banning racist ideas gives the proponents "a
megaphone."

Citing the neo-Nazis who in 1978 were banned from marching in Skokie,
Illinois, Dershowitz wrote: "A one-day story turned into a yearlong
debate about the limits of free speech. In the process the neo-Nazis
were able to spread their hateful message widely."

Dershowitz argued that hateful words are a price worth paying for the
right to free speech.

"History has proved that the best answer to bad speech is good speech,
that the best answer to falsehood is truth, and that the best answer to
hate is brotherhood and sisterhood," he wrote. "Freedom of speech isn't
free. It's expensive, but it's well worth the cost."

But Peter Wertheim, the executive director of the Executive Council of
Australian Jewry, countered that the Jewish organization has "not wasted
our time chasing every anti-Semite and neo-Nazi nobody down a rabbit-hole."

It has gone after the big operators, and succeeded, he wrote in an email
to Dershowitz.

"We were successful in our complaint against Facebook," Wertheim wrote.
"They removed hundreds of crudely racist images and comments that
appeared on 51 Facebook pages."

Similar efforts in the United States had failed, Wertheim noted,
writing: "Our laws have clearly worked better for the Australian Jewish
community against Facebook than the U.S. First Amendment has worked for
the American Jewish community."

An editorial in Saturday's The Australian newspaper concurred with
Dershowitz and criticized the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and
other major Jewish groups for taking a "narrow approach."

"Free choice, including opposition to cultural coercion, was one of the
10 founding principles of Israel, which is also a good reason for
respecting dissenting views," the editors argued.

Tony Abbott's Liberal government, a staunch supporter of Israel, is at
loggerheads with Jewish leaders over its proposed amendments to the
Racial Discrimination Act.

Last month Attorney General George Brandis released draft amendments,
saying the current law, which prohibits publicly offending, insulting,
humiliating or intimidating people, is "unreasonably constrictive on
freedom of speech."

Under the government's draft amendments, it would be illegal only to
"intimidate" or "vilify" people because of their "race, color or
national or ethnic origin." And the proposed changes would not apply to
anything said in the course of "public discussion."

"This exception is wide enough to allow people to publish anti-Semitic
material if they demonstrate that they were participating in public
discussion," argued barrister Arthur Moses in written advice last week
to New South Wales Premier Barry O'Farrell.

The government's proposed changes would "open the door to Holocaust
deniers," Moses wrote, according to a report by Fairfax Media.

Adelaide's most notorious Holocaust denier, Fredrick Toben, was ordered
in 2002 to purge offensive material from his website, after the
Australian Jewry council successfully invoked the Racial Discrimination Act.

Toben would be allowed to publish with impunity under the proposed new
law, Moses argued.

But not all Australian Jews support censorship. Barry Cohen, a former
minister in the Labor government of Bob Hawke, recalled on Saturday that
he was teased as a "dirty effing Jew" at school and barred from joining
a golf club in Sydney because it didn't accept Jews.

"You cannot change people's minds by legislation and, if anything, doing
so will only make things worse," wrote Cohen, who lost most of his
family in Auschwitz and Chelmno. "It will just drive the bigots
underground."

(10) Quadrant: Existing law is measured through the eyes of the
self-perceived victim group

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2014/03/fixing-18c-perfect-close/

Fixing 18c: Not Perfect, But Close To It

James Allan

Quadrant Magazine

March 26th, 2014

It would be better to see this vile obstacle to free speech scrapped
entirely, but Abbott & Co's proposed changes are almost good enough.
Fact is, not even Justice Bromberg could have found against Andrew Bolt
under the proposed revisions.

The Abbott government's announced plans to repeal sections 18C and 18D
of the Racial Discrimination Act, the so-called 'hate speech laws', are
to be welcomed. Never make the perfect the enemy of the good. Sure, a
repeal with no replacement would be better. But we're getting a repeal
with a replacement that only covers those who 'intimidate', as in
causing fear of physical harm, or 'vilify', as in inciting hatred
against a person or group.

The first of those is fine. The second I don't much like, but it will be
far, far better than what we have now. Better still, we have an explicit
provision that jettisons the awful Justice Mordecai Bromberg reading of
the existing law -- that it is to be measured through the eyes of the
self-perceived victim group. Now we have an explicit provision that the
test of whether speech has intimidated or vilified is to be judged 'by
the standards of an ordinary reasonable member of the Australian
community, not by the standards of any particular group within the
Australian community.'

And there is even a better rider now, one that says the section 'does
not apply to words ... published ... in the course of participating in
the public discussion of any political, social, cultural, religious,
artistic, academic or scientific matter'.

So, if you were to take the same judge, same speech and same
complainants and ask if Bolt would have won under the new legislation,
the answer would be a clear 'yes'. Not even Bromberg, the man who
stoppedToyota workers even considering changes to their agreement, could
have found against Bolt under this amendment.

Mr. Abbott and Mr. Brandis are to be congratulated. They've had to
contend with a hostile ABC (I shock you, I know), with all the usual
suspects in the grievance politics world who, again I shock you, live on
the public dime, with the 'identity' lobbies who plead racial
endangerment (a ridiculous claim), and even with the handful of
weak-kneed and left-leaning members of their own caucus.

So this is good -- no, great! -- work by the Coalition. It has just
earned them my vote at the next election. Of course they still have to
get it through the Senate and there is no hope of that until July. Then
we'll see.

Meanwhile, who doesn't love watching the hypocrisy of our former
Governor General taking up her new title of Dame ? I love this move by
Abbott, too. I would have given a day's salary to be there when he
sprung it on Turnbull. Marvellous!

James Allan is Garrick Professor of Law at the University of Queensland

(11) Quadrant: When Did The Left Renounce Liberty?

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2014/03/exactly-left-renounce-liberty/

March 30th 2014

When Did The Left Renounce Liberty?

Daryl McCann

Quadrant Magazine

Remember the Sixties, when self-styled revolutionaries went to
barricades and courtrooms in their crusade for absolutely unfettered
free speech? Somewhere between then and now, the long march through the
institutions all but complete, freedom lost its appeal

free speechThe outrage vented this past week by progressives against
freedom of speech has left me wondering, "Where have all the flowers
gone long time passing?/Where have all the flowers gone, long time ago?"
I thought the whole point of the Sixties Revolution was to set the
people free so they could express themselves without fear of being
busted by "The Man".

Now all we hear is lefty talk along the lines of "freedom of speech
needs qualifiers and social agreement". We have the laws of defamation,
friends, and racial discrimination is still going to be unlawful. So
how, exactly, will the amendment to the Racial Discrimination Act
proposed by the Coalition government "open the floodgates" to
vilification on the basis of race? Some leftist critics appear not to
have even read the planned replacement of Section 18, which is
astonishing, considering it totals less than 200 words. How - for
heaven's sake - did they miss the bit about it being against the law "to
vilify" or "to intimidate" people "because of the race, colour or
national or ethnic origin"?

What is it with all those anti-bourgeois bohemians at The Age and the
ABC and their trepidations about freedom of speech? Even the Baby Boomer
contingent of the leftoid commentariat - that is, older folks who were
actually around in the freedom-loving 1960s - have turned
pro-censorship. What happened to peace, love and understanding? Why so
keen to suppress liberty, choice, independence, free will, and - most
sacred counterculture virtue of all - looseness? What about the dream,
people? Maybe if Pete Seeger were still around he could pen us a new
protest song - Where have all the left-wing libertarians gone? ...

In Australia, once the New Left had taken down "The Man" - hijacked the
ALP, the ABC and every other politico-cultural institution it could get
its hands on - the time arrived to ditch the "personal freedom" jargon
and commence suppressing "disagreeable speech" against what the New
Left's prospective constituency - "the rainbow of discontents". In 1995,
the Keating Labor government introduced Section 18C of the Racial
Discrimination Act, which makes it unlawful for someone to publicly
"offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" a person or group of people.
The progressive commentariat (mostly) rejoiced the day that
libertarian-conservative Andrew Bolt was charged with hurting the
feelings of a group of Indigenous Australians. Served him right, many of
them assumed, without thinking through the setback it represented to
libertarianism in this country or even "the humanitarian force of
Australian liberalism".

The encouraging thing about the "rainbow of discontents" is that an
increasing number of its assumed membership would prefer not to be
caught up in the Left's divide-and-rule game plan. Not a few Indigenous
Australians, including NT Minister Beth Nungarrayi Price, agree with
Andrew Bolt's suggestion that there are inequities in Canberra's support
for those who claim to be indigenous. A redressing of the balance in
favour of people who live in outback NT electorates - not because they
are Aboriginal specifically but because they are poor - would be a good
thing. An appropriate realignment in thinking along these lines can only
be helped by Subsection (4) of George Brandis' proposed Freedom of
Speech Bill 2014:

This section does not apply to words, sounds, images or writing spoken,
broadcast or otherwise communicated in the course of participating in
the public discussion of any political, cultural, religious, artistic,
academic or scientific matter.

This point will in itself go a long way towards returning to us our
civilisational heritage, which is the right to seek the truth
notwithstanding the (PC) orthodoxies of our time.

Brendan O'Neil, the editor of the online magazine Spiked, is that most
rare of creatures - yes, a left-wing libertarian. In an opinion piece in
The Australian, "How a ban of hate speech helped the Nazis", O'Neil
undercuts the contention of some Jewish commentators that Brandis' moves
to change 18C will increase the spectre of anti-Semitism in this
country. The official proscription of "hate speech" in France and
numerous other European countries has not done a jot to stifle
anti-Semitism. In fact, quite the opposite. Without freedom of speech,
without the right to scrutinise the ideology of those who malign and
even murder Jewish individuals, anti-Semitism (which often hides behind
the guise of anti-Zionism) only flourishes.

For instance, David Irving, a Holocaust denier, had been jailed in
Austria for his work, and yet it was the David Irving vs. Penguin Books
& Deborah Lipstadt ruling in Britain back in 2000 that addressed his
lack of academic rigour and proved beyond doubt he was an apologist for
Hitler. To quote from one passage in the ruling: "[Irving] has resorted
to the distortion of evidence; the manipulation and skewing of
documents; the misrepresentation of data and the application of double
standards to the evidence, in order to serve his own purpose exonerating
Hitler and portraying him as sympathetic towards the Jews." It was
proper debate and formal argumentation - rather than incarceration -
that brought Irving undone. Open and free inquiry, as has often been the
case in Western civilisation, better serves the cause of truth, justice
and liberty than hiding behind the fig leaf of "hate speech" legislation.

Waleed Aly's outpouring in The Age, "Brandis' race hate laws are whiter
than white", gives us an indication of how far the modern-day Left has
drifted from the notion of the sovereignty of the individual - the
primary characteristic of modernity - and replaced this with anti-modern
or pre-modern tribalism. Aly's deems Subsection (3) of George Brandis'
proposed Freedom of Speech Bill 2014 proof that the intentions of the
changes to the Racial Discrimination Act are "just so...well, white".
Our leftist commentator has no issue with the proposition that
vilification should be "determined by the standards of an ordinary
reasonable member of the Australian community". On the other hand, he
expresses consternation that the Freedom of Speech Bill pointedly
forbids interpretation of the law "by the standards of any particular
group within the Australian community." This, asserts Aly, means that
the crime of vilification will be determined by "an ordinary reasonable
member of the Australian community" but not "by the standard of whatever
racial minority is being vilified".

The rule of law - at least in a liberal democracy like ours - is what it
says: the rule of law. We are all equal under the law as autonomous
individuals, from mining magnate to pauper, and as with death there are
no exemptions for the rich or the famous or any other kind of grouping.
Waleed Aly's diatribe, as with so much of the leftist tirade we have
experienced this past week, helps explain why the libertarianism of the
New Left has gone the same way as the libertarianism of the Old Left.

Daryl McCann has a blog at http://darylmccann.blogspot.com.au

(12) Brandis interview with Brendan O'Neill, editor of Spiked Online

http://www.spiked-online.com/freespeechnow/fsn_article/the-state-should-never-be-the-arbiter-of-what-people-can-think

'THE STATE SHOULD NEVER BE THE ARBITER OF WHAT PEOPLE CAN THINK'

Brendan O'Neill meets the Voltaire-inspired attorney general of Australia.

Spiked Online

17 APRIL 2014

Ever since Captain Cook set foot here, Australia's exotic creatures have
wowed the rest of the world. Mammals that lay eggs! Marsupials that hop!
Well today, Australia contains what must surely count as the most
exotic, rarely sighted creature of the twenty-first century: a
politician who believes in freedom of speech. Extinct in Europe,
seriously endangered in America, this most hunted of the modern era's
political beasts still survives Down Under, and it goes by the name of
George Brandis.

'I'm a John Stuart Mill man', Brandis tells me, over too much booze and
amazing food at one of Sydney's oldest political haunts, which is called
– wait for it – Machiavelli's. Brandis is the senator for Queensland for
the ruling right-wing Liberal Party, a key cog in the government of
Liberal PM Tony Abbott, and, most importantly, the attorney general of
Australia. This basically means he's in charge of Australian law and
justice. And since taking office with the election of Abbott in 2013,
Brandis has doggedly, and often controversially, devoted himself to
reforming the section of the Oz Racial Discrimination Act that forbids
people from 'offending, insulting or humiliating' a person or group on
the basis of their racial or ethnic origins. Why has he done this? Why
is he so determined to rip up restrictions on insulting ethnic
minorities? Why has he allowed himself to be branded by many on the
Australian left as a 'friend of bigots' who is using his power to help
'unleash Australia's racists'?

'Because', he says, 'if you are going to defend freedom of speech, you
have to defend the right of people to say things you would devote your
political life to opposing. Your good faith is tested by whether or not
you would defend the right to free speech of people with whom you
profoundly disagree. That's the test.'

In an era when European politicians are forever battling it out to see
who can outlaw the most forms of 'hate speech', when Canada hauls
so-called hate speakers before its Human Rights Commission to justify
themselves, when students in America and Britain ban, burn or
no-platform anything they decree to be hateful – whether it's Zionist
politicians or the pop super-hit 'Blurred Lines' – Brandis's
single-minded campaign to rein in Australia's hate-speech laws is quite
something. In fact it feels positively weird to hear a mainstream
politician, someone whose face you see in the papers and on TV all the
time here, talk about the 'limits of the state to interfere with the
utterance of ideas, beliefs and opinions', and even to say, as Brandis
does to me, that 'people have the right to be bigots, you know'. Try to
imagine a British politician campaigning for, effectively, the freedom
to hate; it just wouldn't happen.

Brandis says he's been a fan of free speech for ages. He reminds me that
in his maiden speech to the Australian Senate, given 14 years ago when
he was first elected as senator for Queensland, he let everyone know
that 'one of my most fundamental objectives would be to protect freedom
of thought and expression'. He tells me he has long been agitated by
'the cultural tyranny of political correctness'. But there were two
recent, specific things that made him realise just what a mortal threat
freedom of speech faces in the modern era and that he would have to dust
down his Mill, reread his Voltaire, and up the ante in his war of words
against, as he puts it, the transformation of the state into 'the
arbiter of what might be thought'. The first thing was the
climate-change debate; and the second is what is known down here as The
Andrew Bolt Case.

He describes the climate-change debate – or non-debate, or anti-debate,
to be really pedantic but also accurate – as one of the 'great
catalysing moments' in his views about the importance of free speech. He
isn't a climate-change denier; he says he was 'on the side of those who
believed in anthropogenic global warming and who believed something
ought to be done about it'. But he has nonetheless found himself 'really
shocked by the sheer authoritarianism of those who would have excluded
from the debate the point of view of people who were climate-change
deniers'. He describes as 'deplorable' the way climate change has become
a gospel truth that you deny or mock at your peril, 'where one side
[has] the orthodoxy on its side and delegitimises the views of those who
disagree, rather than engaging with them intellectually and showing them
why they are wrong'.

He describes how Penny Wong, the Labor Party senator for South Australia
and minister for climate change in the Julia Gillard government, would
'stand up in the Senate and say "The science is settled". In other
words, "I am not even going to engage in a debate with you". It was
ignorant, it was medieval, the approach of these true believers in
climate change.' Wong, whom Brandis tells me is 'Australia's high
priestess of political correctness', is far from alone in suffering from
what the American journalist Joel Kotkin recently described as 'The
Debate Is Over' Syndrome. Throughout eco-circles, and among the
political and media elites more broadly, the idea that the time for
debating climate change is over, and now we just need action, action,
action, is widespread. And to Brandis, this speaks to a new and
illiberal climate of anti-intellectualism, to the emergence of 'a habit
of mind and mode of discourse which would deny the legitimacy of an
alternative point of view, where rather than winning the argument [they]
exclude their antagonists from the argument'.

The great irony to this new 'habit of mind', he says, is that the
eco-correct think of themselves as enlightened and their critics as
'throwbacks', when actually 'they themselves are the throwbacks, because
they adopt this almost theological view, this cosmology that eliminates
from consideration the possibility of an alternative opinion'. The moral
straitjacketing of anyone who raises a critical peep about
eco-orthodoxies is part of a growing 'new secular public morality', he
says, 'which seeks to impose its views on others, even at the cost of
political censorship'.

The second thing that made him sharpen his pen and open his gob about
the importance of freedom of speech was the case of Andrew Bolt.

Bolt is one of Australia's most widely read journalists. He writes a
column for the Herald Sun in Melbourne. He riles the hell out of lefties
and people who work at the ABC. For British readers, think Richard
Littlejohn, but better-read and more cultured. In 2010, he wrote some
blog posts for the Herald Sun website criticising the fashion among
'fair-skinned people' to claim Aboriginal heritage, under the headlines:
'It's so hip to be black', 'White is the New Black' and 'White Fellas in
the Black'. He was sued by nine individuals and was hauled off to court,
where he was found to have contravened Section 18C of the Racial
Discrimination Act – the bit that forbids 'offending, insulting or
humiliating' ethnic groups. In a 57,000-word ruling, the judge said
Bolt's articles were 'insulting', causing a 'loss of esteem' among the
people criticised in them, and also slammed 'the manner in which the
articles were written' and their 'inflammatory and provocative
language'. The Herald Sun was forced by the court to publish a notice
declaring that publication of the articles had been 'unlawful'.*

Brandis is stinging about this case. The judge 'engaged in an act of
political censorship', he says, with a journalist 'prohibited from
expressing a point of view'. The reason Brandis is so keen to ditch the
bit of the Racial Discrimination Act that allowed such a flagrant act of
ideological censure to take place in twenty-first-century Australia is
because while it is justified as a guard against outbursts of dangerous
racism, actually it allows the state to police and punish legitimate
public speech and debate. 'And the moment you establish the state as the
arbiter of what might be said, you establish the state as the arbiter of
what might be thought, and you are right in the territory that George
Orwell foreshadowed', he says.

So currently, Brandis is on a mission to reform Section 18C. He wants to
remove the words 'insult', 'offend' and 'humiliate', but he is willing
to leave in the stipulation against 'intimidation' of a person or group
on the basis of their ethnic origins. He's receiving colossal flak from
what we might call Australia's chattering classes. They accuse him of
standing up for bigots. He didn't help himself when he said in the
Senate a couple of weeks ago that people do have the right to be bigots.
That unleashed a tsunami of ridicule, even from some of his supporters.
But he tells me he has no regrets. 'I don't regret saying that because
in this debate, sooner or later – and better sooner than later –
somebody had to make the Voltaire point; somebody had to make the point
[about] defending the right to free speech of people with whom you
profoundly disagree.'

Brandis says there are two reasons he's bent on overhauling Section 18C.
The first is because it expands the authority of state into the realm of
thought, where it should never tread, he says. 'There is a deeper
question here, about the role of the state. To what extent should the
state be the arbiter of what people can think? Now of course, the state
is the arbiter of what people can do. The state, to use the most
straightforward example imaginable, prohibits murder. It is the role of
government to protect the weak from the strong. But this is about
whether it is the role of government to tell people what they may think.
In my view, freedom of speech, by which I mean the freedom to express
and articulate beliefs and opinions, is a necessary and essential
precondition of political freedom.'

And the second reason he wants Section 18C massively trimmed is because
he believes censorship is the worst possible tool for tackling backward
thinking. 'As you know, Brendan, John Stuart Mill, particularly in
chapter 2 of On Liberty, made the case better than anyone has made it
before or since that the best way for the public to be enlightened, for
wicked opinions to be exposed for what they are, is to get them out in
the cold light of day and let there be a contest of ideas. Let people
judge, having heard the contest of ideas, what views are right and
supportable, and what views are wrong.

'It is much better that we arrive at a community position on difficult
social issues that way than some bureaucrat or human-rights commissioner
or politician or public servant tells us what we're allowed to think and
say. Political censorship is always wrong, not just because it is an
assault on liberty, but because it is actually ineffective. The best way
to popularise a political opinion is to censor it!'

In short, he wants restrictions on speech lifted because they both
prevent people from expressing themselves and also rob the public of the
right to discuss and pass judgement on various ideas; because they both
censor the individual and disempower the demos. I can get behind that.
It remains to be seen, of course, how successful his agitation against
the worst parts of Section 18C will be – the pressure on him to shelve
his plans is intense.

As befits a Liberal attorney general who loathes PC, Brandis is scathing
about the left. And that's understandable. After all, what passes for
the left in modern Australia, in both journalism and campaigning
circles, has been angrily slamming as dangerous and bigoted his plans to
reform Section 18C, with GuardianAustralia (yep, they're down here now,
too) accusing him of 'giving racists a free rein'. 'The left has
embraced a new authoritarianism', he says. 'Having abandoned the attempt
to control the commanding heights of the economy, they now want to
control the commanding heights of opinion, and that is even more dangerous.'

However, he's sussed enough to know that this is something new, that the
left's turn against freedom of speech is a pretty recent thing: 'It's a
complete inversion. The right, until maybe the 1970s or 80s, used to be
on the side of censorship, and the left used to be on the side of
liberation. That has inverted in the last 20 or 30 years. Now it is the
left, in the name of political correctness, in the name of this kind of
new secular public morality, which seeks to impose its views on others,
even at the cost of political censorship. And it is the right,
traditionally more authoritarian than the left, which has become the
custodian of classical liberalism.

'The idea of there being a public morality which the state should at
least endorse, if not enforce, used to be associated with the Tory point
of view, the right-wing point of view. The idea of non-conformism and
free speech used to be associated with the left, and particularly the
radical left. Now, the left has adopted a reasonably comprehensive
secular morality of its own, which it now seeks to impose upon society.
And it's prepared to impose that secular morality on society at the cost
of the freedom of speech which it once espoused. So there has been a
very profound change in intellectual history in our lifetimes.'

Brandis is generous enough to recognise that 'most of the great social
causes in the years since the Second World War were led by the left'.
'Women's liberation, gay liberation, wars of national liberation in the
Third World – the language was the language of enlarging freedom, for
oppressed groups or individuals or countries.' But now, he says, 'the
left has abandoned the discourse of liberation … because they have a new
construct which is all to do with power relationships in society. They
are so concerned with rearranging power relationships, so as to
disempower the empowered and elevate the disempowered, that they are
prepared in the service of that end to sacrifice liberty. Nowadays, they
regard liberty as the defence mechanism of the empowered.' Indeed, in a
recent TV discussion here about Section 18C, one firebrand leftist
described free speech as something that only serves 'old white rich
men'. That's how much of the left now views free speech – as a tool of
the empowered, a cynical con that allows pampered folks only to say what
they think. With such a deeply cynical view of perhaps the most
important political value, one which earlier leftists fought
tooth-and-nail to defend, it is little wonder that the right can now
claim supreme moral authority over freedom of speech – that authority
has been ceded to them by a left that has ditched its old free-wheelin',
state-suspicious beliefs in favour of seeking to control thought and
speech in the name of protecting the environment, pacifying the public
and maintaining social order; something the right was once obsessed with
doing.

Brandis isn't defending racists, as his illiberal critics claim; he's
defending the Enlightenment-era principle that the state shouldn't get
to determine what people can think and say. As another bottle of wine
arrives, he returns to Mill: 'He said the only limitation on the freedom
of the individual should be when he causes harm to others. Hearing views
that you find offensive or outrageous or insulting is not a form of
harm. If it is admitted to be a form of harm, then freedom of speech,
freedom of discourse, intellectual freedom and political freedom become
impossible.'

Brendan O'Neill is editor of spiked and currently scholar-in-residence
for the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney.

*This article originally said that Andrew Bolt's controversial articles
on Aboriginal heritage have been removed from the Herald Sun's website.
In fact they remain on the website but are preceded by a court-ordered
notice informing readers that publication of the articles had been
'unlawful' because the articles did 'offend, insult, humiliate or
intimidate some Aboriginal persons'. This has now been corrected.