Hate Speech and Australian Writing
A number of times in my adult life I have been subjected to tirades on the limitations of people with brown eyes. Sometimes aware of what they’re doing, sometimes oblivious to my brown eyes, people attribute a number of negative characteristics to brown eyes – untrustworthiness, criminality, social disorderliness etc. Until the last few years I had no way of describing what was being done here, apart from the broad terms ‘prejudice’ and ‘discrimination’. Accused of either of these, people deny the intent of their words, either believing they were ‘joking’ or that they were making such broad statements no-one should take offence. Now I would call this hate speech.
Where did the term ‘hate speech’ come from?
The phrase ‘Hate Speech’ came to my attention in 1998 thanks to the President of Ireland’s speech: The Defense of Freedom. In her discussion Mary McAleese defined Freedom of Speech and described its misuse. Her interpretation of Freedom of Speech was surprising to me as I had never considered physical acts like marching to be part of free speech. But, marching does fit into the strictest interpretation of Freedom of Speech, as do other expressions of political or religious beliefs such as portraying graphics and symbols. McAleese had encountered the misuse of Freedom of Speech in Ireland and America where people use their rights to make religious and political statements that are inflammatory, causing trouble for minority groups. An example she gave of this was the Orange Marches in Northern Ireland which cause friction with Catholics.
In searching for a solution to the problem of hate speech, McAleese referred to the UN Declaration of Human Rights which asserts that we have obligations to our community, including allowing other people the right to develop their personalities and to respect their rights. She came to the conclusion that hate speech must be answered, in controlled venues where violence will not erupt from the discussion.
Recent Discussions of Hate Speech
But some groups do not make this easy, or even possible. Recently I read Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, which is a lengthy biography of the life of a woman who lived in different Islamic countries, and her view of Islam as woman on the inside of this religion. She has reason to think Islam is not willing to listen to criticism at the present time.
Her account of her involvement with Theo Van Gogh and his subsequent murder by a Muslim fundamentalist demonstrates how all sides can limit debate. Ayaan worked with Van Gogh on a ten minute film called Submission, in which four women tell Allah about how badly they have been treated. There was little action, but each woman had verses from the Koran written on their skin. Van Gogh had already made public anti-Islamic statements, and had also upset the Jewish establishment. But in 2004 he was brutally murdered for producing this film.
Many Muslims claim the right to condemn all Westerners in very forthright language, using the Freedom of Speech granted in their countries, and rights granted to them by the Koran. Van Gogh had the right under Dutch Law to express his views against this, but did he have the right to inflame a situation that was already difficult? Is there any way to respond to aspects of Islam we don’t like, without upsetting the Muslim community or is the Muslim community denying other communities the right of freedom of speech?
In another example, Neo-Nazis in Germany are heavily censored, especially in relation to their assertion that the Holocaust never happened. Due to their intransigent attitudes it is difficult to have a reasoned debate with them. But in a recent essay Bernard Schlinke discussed a new problem that has come from this. People don’t want different interpretations or representations of the Holocaust to be written or filmed. People want to lock one interpretation of events into history and leave it unexamined, which is a dangerous thing to do. Once events take on a black and white, good and evil template, instead of the multi-faceted view that real life gives us, we slide into fundamentalism.
Where does Australia stand on the issue of Freedom of Speech ?
In Australia there is no guaranteed right to Freedom of Speech. People’s rights are implied in the fact they have the right to vote which requires they be given access to information on voting issues. This is not a strong legal position. There are some rights under the Anti- Discrimination Act’s anti vilification rules. Once again, this is not a strong legal right. Australian democratic rights have also been eroded recently by anti-terrorism laws and child pornography legislation which along with defamation laws are generally seen as reasonable limitations of personal liberty. The Henson Case in 2008 has again limited Freedom of Speech, and reinforced censorship in Australia no matter how unjustified that may be.
There has not been a lot of specific discussion of Freedom of Speech and Hate Speech in Australia in recent times. The Henson Case has opened up the censorship issue yet again, proving that it is still a problem , but most of the discussion of this case was about freedom of artistic expression and what laws were supposedly broken. There was a degree of hate speech from the opposition in this case, but it was not named and shamed. The kind of discussions about Freedom of Speech Europeans have been engaged in, pass Australians by as if they aren’t affected by this problem. But they are. Australia is a multi-cultural society where these issues are simmering. Russell Blackford has an excellent article on Free Speech and Hate Speech at http:// www.findarticles.com which takes the reader through a number of cases and some solutions to the problem of hate speech.
Are Australian writers influenced by Hate Speech ? Should they be?
Australian writers have been variously subjected to censorship since Federation. Norman Lindsay was censored (Red Heap) and Eleanor Dark was watched by the authorities, among many others. With censorship of overseas material as well, the Australian government has always been strict, writers haven’t needed to examine self censorship. However, recent publications have shown a reluctance by many writers to engage in political criticism or anything that might be called Hate Speech. For instance, in Romulus, My Father Raimond Gaita avoided description or discussion of the concentration camps in Nazi Germany, preferring to briefly outline his parent’s experiences. Given his reluctance in other writings to criticize neo-Nazi’s, he is quite possibly erring on the side of self-censorship. But is he giving in to a powerful group who talk everyone else down?
Alice Pung, in Unpolished Gem, also limits her discussion of her parent’s experiences in China under the Cultural Revolution, and in Cambodia under Pol Pot. She absolutely avoids discussion of current immigration practices, even when they involve the Migrant Centre she lived in. Once again, the decision not to write negatively about groups of people who might perceive your writing as Hate Speech, seems to be the driving force. Perhaps she’s saving these issues for other writing.
In the 2008 memoir A Burqa and a Hard Place Sally Cooper writes about her experiences in Afghanistan, openly criticizing UN and NGO policies, but treading carefully around Islamic issues. There is a clear divide in her work between legitimate political criticism and the avoidance of anything that could be considered Hate Speech.
These three books are all memoirs, making me wonder what has been happening in recent Australian novels. Lately, there has been public criticism of Australian fiction, including claims that it is boring and colourless. If you think about the novels published this decade, surfing and prostitution have been the most interesting topics covered so far. Is this because there is nothing to write about? Hardly. What all the texts I have come across recently have in common is the desire not to offend. Australians are polite, nice people who don’t upset other people around the world or in their own country, they don’t use hate speech in print but they don’t address anything controversial. Australians come across as complacent and introspective because they don’t have the confidence in themselves that Freedom of Speech would give them.
If Australian writers intend to be taken seriously, and not be considered dull and irrelevant, they need to stop self censoring and write something worth reading.
by Glen
