“Use it, or lose it” as the saying goes.
A generation that fails to articulate and re-state the case for the free expression of opinions may well be the generation that loses it.
Fortunately, it’s not just a few bloggers who care about the issue. Some defenders of free speech may be reasonably described as ‘big guns’. One of them is Michael Sexton, the New South Wales Solicitor-General.
NSW Solicitor General, Michael Sexton
Today’s (Murdoch-owned) Australian newspaper carries an opinion piece by Sexton: Defend to last their right to say it which concludes with a deceptively simple sentence:
“The real answer is to accept that opinions, no matter how offensive to some or all members of the community, should be immune from all civil or criminal proceedings.“
In these few wise words, Mr Sexton cuts right to the heart of the issue. No ‘Bill of Rights’ is needed in Australia to support that proposition – and Sexton explains why, expanding on another must-read article he wrote for The Australian in late 2008: Rights are about who gets to decide.
What’s needed above all is to forge consensus – within our society – that OPINIONS should be immune from all civil or criminal proceedings.
To those who can’t join the consensus, we should respectfully, but firmly, say ‘tough!’ – and carry on speaking our opinions freely. None of us, after all, need listen to opinions we dislike. We can always switch the channel or leave the room. Those who disgaree can continue to argue openly for censorship…
Sexton’s most recent article begins with the case of Dr Frederick Toben, who fell victim of Australia’s ‘Racial Discrimiation Act’ (and Human Rights machinary!) because he offended powerful Jewish sensibilities over his beliefs about World War Two.
Using what is a tiresome but apparently ‘necessary’ formula to get anything touching on the Toben case published in Australia’s mass media, Mr Sexton drops a bucket of verbal excrement over Mr Toben before defending his right to communicate heterodox opinions free from legal sanction.
Sexton’s article then discusses other cases, such as religious vilification proceedings taken by some Muslim converts against a Pentecostal Christian group, harassment of a euthenasia campaigner on his trip to Britain – even a heavy-handed attempt to silence criticism of umpires by the Australian Football League!
As I publish this blog myself, I’m free from the pervasive, stultifying need to pander to ‘consensus’ verities enforced by the likes of News Corp. Consequently, I can take issue with Sexton over the remarks he made about Toben. This is what Mr Sexton says:
The federal Racial Discrimination Act… may result in the imprisonment of Frederick Toben, who posted material on the internet arguing that there was serious doubts that the Holocaust occurred.
His is an absurd proposition and offensive not only to Jews but to anyone with the least knowledge of modern history. But that is not a reason to prevent Toben from expressing this utterly misguided view.
Naturally I defend Mr Sexton’s right to say this. He may well believe it, for all I know. But could he please explain in a reasonable amount of detail – to himself if if not to the rest of us – what “serious doubts that the Holocaust occurred“ actually means?
The NSW Solicitor-General is presumably referring to events that took place during World War Two (1939-45). However, he uses a term (‘Holocaust’) that wasn’t coined to signify those events until the 1960s, and wasn’t used widely for that purpose until the 1970s.
Dr Frederick Toben: OK to mention him, as long as you say he's a shit
Before then and since, a plethora of histories have been written about World War Two. Books published after the 1970s typically used the term ‘Holocaust’; Few books published previously did. These books have all been different, sometimes differing significantly in substance as well as detail; there is no ‘established consensus history’ of World War Two.
Exactly what set of beliefs about World War Two does Mr Sexton believe it is an ‘absurd proposition’ to doubt?
While my own understanding of modern history may not be a patch on Mr Sexton’s, I do have more than “the least knowledge of modern history“.
Contrary to Mr Sexton’s stated assumption, I don’t find Toben’s opinions about World War Two self-evidently offensive. That’s not to give blanket endorsement to any of Dr Toben’s views or writings. On occasion, I dislike his manner of expression when discussing Jewish people. I disagree with his views about the precise nexus between Judaism and Communism. There’s more…
But I also happen to disagree with most of the political talking heads that appear regularly on my TV screen. I disagree with them about lots and lots of things. For example, I loathe their often expressed views about bogus ‘terrorism’ and support for illegal wars.
To apply the ‘Toben formula’ in an even-handed manner, every time I discuss anyone at all I’d first need to say what I most dislike about them in a pithy sentence or two.
I might therefore refer to Mr Sexton, from now on, as “the man who succumbs to conformist pressure by ritually demeaning anyone pilloried by Zionists, before he (very capably) defends their right to express opinions freely in public.”
That would be fair and balanced, in my opinion. 
Taking it further, instead of a friendly “G’day” to my neighbour, perhaps from now on I’ll say “I don’t like your ears and I think your hat looks ridiculous!”.
If universally adopted, this way of greeting and discussing each other would make for a most interesting post-modern culture. The consequences are hard to predict. I suspect it might drastically lower the birth-rate.
Even so, as long as people uphold the right to express opinions freely, there’s a chance we’ll notice and correct mistaken ways and keep the flame of hope alive.
