Menu lock

Australia

Jul 29, 2014

Rundle: Tim Wilson’s all-singing, all-dancing free speech freedom jamboree

The Australian Human Rights Commission is hosting a conference on freedom, but is it just another case of choosing talk over action?

The Abbott government’s culture war is on the road, with the announcement of a symposium on “free speech” by new freedom commissioner Tim Wilson. The Free Speech 2014 symposium will take place on August 7 in Sydney. The conference strap line is stirring enough — “free speech is fundamental to a free and democratic society. But … is it adequately protected and promoted in Australia?” The one-day symposium will contribute to a “road map” for the future of free speech in Australia.

The conference will be opened by Attorney-General George Brandis, addressed by a score of luminaries, and streamed and tweeted live. Who could object to a major discussion on the place of free speech in Australian society?

Well no one, if that’s what this were. But it isn’t. It’s a subtly slanted conference, consented to in its current form by the Australian Human Rights Commission to, I suspect, keep Tim Wilson happy and therefore keep the government at bay, and designed to produce a one-sided discussion of the role that free speech plays in social life — and most importantly to limit and marginalise a more expanded view of rights, in which competing and contradictory individual and collective rights must be adjudicated between by, ohhhh, I don’t know, something like a human rights commission.

For classical liberals such as Wilson, freedom is purely “negative” in the sense defined by the English social liberal T.H. Green — they consist in restraining the state from interfering with our free activity. For social liberals — the tradition from which the labour movement, the Green movement and practices like multiculturalism spring — freedoms are also “positive” and involve a set of arrangements in which all members of a society can flourish. Positive freedom applies to things like material want — you’re not free if you work 80 hours a week for subsistence wages — but more recently it has applied to more complex social arrangements. Are you free to flourish if you can be bullied and berated with racist bile without any sanction?

Freedom Boy’s Free Speech Day is structured to exclude any real advocacy of that second idea of freedom, and indeed of any notion that there may be major contradictions between differing rights at all.

Thus, in the session “accommodating rights” we have IPA gunslinger Chris Berg talking about “free speech in a liberal democracy” (spoiler: he’s for it), with no speaker who might offer a contrary view to the one Berg will offer.

The question of whether we should consider who owns what and how they get to speak — “is the media playing field level?” — is addressed solely by Megan Brownlow of accounting/management giant PricewaterhouseCoopers. Maybe she’ll devote the second half of her speech to a Marxist analysis of control of the means of information, but somehow I doubt it. “Open and transparent government” is the topic to be addressed by libertarian Senator David Leyonhjelm, but there is no one to talk about the role government might play in enabling freedom through the funding of multiple media sources, as occurs in many European countries, for example.

“What are the limits of free speech and how should it be protected?” is a doozy of a session. Note the weighting in the topic, and then personnel — Gary Johns, ex-IPA and Centre for Independent Studies, and now head of his own Right think tank, the Australian Institute for Progress, Professor Suri Ratnapala, who has addressed the IPA and the CIS, George Williams, who is a centrist, and Spencer Zifcak, who is of the Left, but whose current gig — head of Liberty Victoria — predisposes him to advocate in a certain direction.

As the author of a draft human rights act, Zifcak obviously represents an alternative voice in favour of a robust idea of positive freedom. But he’s also constrained in that he’s speaking in an official capacity, as head of Liberty Victoria, which has competing demands, and is, by its nature, oriented to advocacy of negative freedom. No one really balances the phalanx of freewheeling right-wingers on display here

What’s missing from such a session is a Larissa Behrendt, a Waleed Aly, or any number of other speakers who would have been the complement of the right-wing liberals who have relatively free rein here. Missing also: anyone from the Left, such as an Antony Loewenstein or a Katherine Wilson — presumably because they would give an account of free speech that combined a commitment to it with a critique of material media power.

The discussion around online freedoms is also skewed towards property rights and away from citizenship rights. Thus “combating online harassment” is being addressed by the head of global content policy for Facebook, Monika Bickert, but there is no one from The Pirate Party or similar to give an alternative view to the official pronouncements of the world’s largest online corporation — save for a representative of the very moderate Australian Digital Alliance. Of the other players, Augusto Zimmermann (on vilification laws) publishes in Quadrant and with the CIS, Anne Twomey (donations as speech — answers on a postcard please) has the IPA/CIS/Quadrant hat-trick, while poor old Kesten Green (on “the commercial environment”) has only IPA and Quadrant connections. Mark Dreyfus of the ALP and the poor old Bret Walker, who is representing Kevin Rudd in the pink batts inquiry, round out the constrained and very moderate “alternative” viewpoint.

None of this is to slight the non-right-wing activists who are appearing in this thing, but this really is a classic stitch-up — utterly cynical, and somewhat cowardly. Rather than argue out the role of “free speech” in a complex society, and what other rights might have claim, the symposium is being used to give academic gloss to a whole series of things the government wants to do anyway. This insular approach to cultural politics has already landed the government one disaster — when they tried to push through with the evisceration of 18c without having any real idea of how committed the mass of Australian people were to an idea of collective and “positive’ freedom” — and I’m sure they can screw it up again. In the meantime registrations are still available for a one-day conference in which you get the chance to hear Freedom Boy Tim Wilson speak twice. You’ll have to pay for it — but then, you already are.

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

28 comments

Leave a comment

28 thoughts on “Rundle: Tim Wilson’s all-singing, all-dancing free speech freedom jamboree

  1. Steven Grant Haby

    Guy

    A quick glance at the program idicates as you state a real mish-mash of individuals pushing specific agendas. Are you planning to attend? I’ll even cough up the $330 for you as I am not able to go (as much as I would like to).

    Should be a very ‘interesting’ day

    Steven

  2. Yclept

    Surely you’re not suggesting that any lefties be allowed to talk. They’re just too biased. You should know that, just look at that horrible communist ABC!

    Only these true libertarians of the right can save Australia…

  3. paddy

    [It’s a subtly slanted conference]
    ROTFL
    It’ looks about as subtle as a bulldozer and the “slant” is closer to a ski jump ramp than a level playing field.
    Hell, it looks even worse than your common or garden #qanda .

    @$165 a seat for a pensioner, I’m afraid I’ll be eating stale crusts and guzzling cheap plonk, instead of swapping bon mots with the glitterati.

    Still, I suppose the twitter feed should be a hoot.

    Re: SGH’s kind offer. Surely Crikey could buy you a discounted ticket and a bus fare to Sydney Guy?

    For that, I might even be tempted to watch the circus online.

  4. klewso

    Free speech is great – as long as you or one of your media mogul sponsors hold the megaphone.

  5. zut alors

    The prospect of Tim Wilson speaking twice in a single day has me reeling for the smelling salts.

    I’d like to hear a quality debate on why whistleblowers aren’t under the protective umbrella of free speech. The hapless Allan Kessing springs to mind – so much for free speech in our great democracy.

  6. klewso

    … I’ve always wanted to see “a rat with a gold tooth”, haven’t so far – ’til then Wilson will do?

  7. Ben heslop

    Tim Wilson doesn’t like free speech when it comes to the IPA revealing its sponsors.

  8. Alex

    I strongly suspect Tim Wilson’s mission is to protect THE right rather than rights of a human kind.

  9. fractious

    Oh my, Brandis to open, followed by several (indigestible) courses of IPA/ CIS/ Quadrant ideology, with a couple of sacrificial “moderates” thrown in like Christians in a Roman arena full of lions. What a knees-up that’ll be – regrettably I’ll be wasting my $330 on such Marxist trivia as food, bills and so on.

    “the symposium is being used to give academic gloss to a whole series of things the government wants to do anyway”

    And, I daresay, the appearance of “a frank and open public debate that seeks the views of the ordinary person” or some such twaddle. If they did one of those entry polls like Q&A do, I wonder what the audience’s political persuasion might look like…

  10. dazza

    That great promoter of free speech, the OZ, keeps offending people by not publishing comments that don’t agree with their world view.