One of the most important reasons for encouraging free speech is that ideas are put to the test of vigorous debate. A free-speech society allows the expression of ideas, however distasteful they may be to a majority or however wrong the majority may feel those ideas to be. The reason is that only through communication can faulty ideas be corrected. Only through communication can valuable new ways of looking at things, which ultimately benefit humankind, be accepted. And the freer that communication, the quicker the spread of the ideas and the quicker the good ones get accepted. Without free speech and with those in power suppressing free speech the valuable and better ways at looking at things take longer to surface, to the detriment of humankind.
Thus the vast majority of people who before Copernicus wrote On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres in 1543 thought the earth was flat was only turned into a tiny minority of the ignorant or foolish after the communication of the idea became freer. It took quite some time.
But freedom of communication comes at a price. It means bigoted, mean-spirited and idiotic things get communicated. Indeed, perhaps more rubbish gets stated than truth. None the less, it is a price well worth paying, so that the good things come out.
The price, of course, can be substantially lessened if wise and intelligent people put foolish, bigoted and mean-spirited ideas to the blow-torch of debate. In a society that treasures freedom of speech it is incumbent on those in positions of power to not only defend the right of people to state the foolish and distasteful, but also to argue against it, on the merits.
There are two elements to the famous saying attributed to Voltaire. There is not only the defending to the death your right to say something, but there is also the bit about disagreeing with what you say.
Since Pauline Hanson’s maiden speech in which she called for an end to Asian immigration and cuts to government services to Aborigines, the Prime Minister John Howard has been much more forthright on the former than the latter. He has defended people’s right to say things. He has defended his own right to say things. But he has not specifically disagreed with Ms Hanson. He has engaged in reciting platitudes not debate.
Mr Howard’s defence is that it is not appropriate for the Prime Minister to respond to back-benchers or indeed to engage in policy formulation by reference to what others say. He says the people of Australia expect the Prime Minister to state his own position.
True, the Prime Minister should state his own position. True, the Prime Minister need not respond to every statement by any independent backbencher. But there are questions of judgment and duty here. Ms Hanson’s speech has had saturation national coverage. Her statement covered three of the most important social issues in Australia: immigration, multiculturalism and Aboriginal affairs. It did so in a way that defied even the bare minimum bipartisan approach on these questions. According to one MP, it may have incited racial violence.
By all means Mr Howard should state his personal and party’s broad view about the topics Ms Hanson covered. But given the strength of the reaction around Australia it is incumbent on the nation’s leader to do more. He should have specifically stated that he rejected the view expressed by Ms Hanson about Asian immigration and about Aborigines getting too much government help and being privileged. The Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, should do the same thing.
If they did that, racism would have nowhere to go politically and supporters of racism would be told their votes are not wanted by the major parties.
By not doing it, Mr Howard gives the appearance of not waiting to alienate those voters from his party, whether he intends it or not. In that limited respect he leaves himself open to the charge that he is profiting from racism, even if he is clearly not racist himself.
For his sake, his party’s sake and the nation’s sake Mr Howard must repudiate Ms Hanson’s statements specifically.