Freedom of speech under attack by state

It is worth fighting for liberties Aussies take for granted, says Linley Grant

FREEDOM of speech has obviously been worrying many Tasmanians, both writers to the Mercury and those I met at two very different meetings I attended recently.

Many say we should feel proud of our Australian heritage and the freedoms we enjoyed before the 1960s, and are perturbed about legislation which restricts this freedom.

Several examples of recent restrictions have been cited — restrictions on staff working at Australian detention centres, on the Human Rights Commissioner when she delivered a report to Government, on the ABC when speakers on Q&A spoke without courtesy and respect to one another, on the restriction of information about asylum seeker boats, and most recently on the restriction preventing Government members from speaking on Q&A.

Surely if Australians speak with courtesy and respect for others, openly and with integrity, there is no need for restrictions which smack of totalitarian regimes?

To those of us who care about freedom of speech, it seems more important that Australians should not be able to give sums of money to parliamentary parties in order to speak freely to an MP and get a fair hearing.

It makes many of us feel sick when we hear of bribery. It indicates a breakdown in democracy if members of the public are not able to openly discuss problems without being denigrated or ignored.

Surely, if MPs are to represent their constituencies and not just their parties, they should be free to speak honestly and openly about Government action.

Parliamentarians have special privileges within the Houses of Parliament because the tasks they perform require additional powers and protections. However, there is nothing in parliamentary privilege about being able to denigrate another member, or play games of verbal, political one-upmanship.

Most thinking Australians are tired of hearing personal denigration inside and outside Parliament. It encourages verbal violence in our community.

In other nations, people are jailed for expressing opinions. This is one reason for the flood of refugees from those nations.

Australians decried the imprisonment of journalist Peter Greste in Egypt, but he was, and is, not alone.

Amnesty International is working continuously to have outspoken people in countries near us, particularly journalists, released from prison.

One was released last week in China, and hopefully another cartoonist and outspoken Malaysian, might soon be released if a global petition succeeds.

The number of global petitions has risen significantly in recent years and is a powerful way for citizens to let governments and the United Nations know they are dissatisfied with a particular situation.

There is no need for restrictions which smack of totalitarian regimes.

This has been one real advantage of the internet for millions of people. The few who abuse the privilege and are caught, should perhaps be denied future access.

What should happen here if Australians are penalised for expressing an opinion?

Now the Government has passed new laws to “restrict terrorism” and collects our metadata, will it result in Australia becoming like Egypt in relation to freedom of speech?

Terrorism can best be stopped in Australia with a focus on a fair go, equity and justice for all, sound, secular education — and a restriction on weapons, not on freedom of speech.

If the Australian Government is really trying to protect us, then why restrict freedom of speech when we need such freedom for whistleblowers to dob in those who abuse the privilege.

All Australians from the top down, should use freedom of speech with the respect and care it warrants.