Page 1226 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 24 April 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
video stocks of the stores throughout Canberra, responding to every complaint of false labelling, et cetera. Unlike other State Attorneys-General, I would attempt to enforce the law, but it would make a laughing-stock of our national capital.
The issue is greater than simply that of whether to ban X-rated videos. It hinges on questions of individual conscience, individual choice and individual freedoms. What is right and what is wrong in matters of conscience is informed by a variety of social, cultural and religious factors and must ultimately be a personal decision. While it is not possible to legislate for goodness, it is incumbent upon a popularly elected government to reflect the values of the wider community and, equally importantly, to be seen to do so. Obviously, this is not easily achieved.
In the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights it is stated that one of the highest aspirations of the common people is the freedom of speech, and that social progress, better standards of living and the equal rights of men and women are promoted through larger freedoms. In guarding the liberty to speak, history encourages us to err in favour of generosity. There are far too many examples throughout history where this has not happened - the religious intolerance of the English state in the seventeenth century which drove out the Pilgrim Fathers; the racial intolerance of Germany under the Nazis which led to the final solution to exterminate the Jews; the political intolerance that saw the great terror under Stalin, and the McCarthy witch-hunts in America. Our ancestors do not have to be Tolpuddle Martyrs, nor do we have to be students of history to understand the consequences of these kinds of attitudes. One need only pick up a daily newspaper and see Salman Rushdie's name to be reminded.
Albeit to differing degrees, these cases raise the same critical questions. At what point does a state have the right to override certain fundamental freedoms in the name of the common good? At what point may a democratic government disregard individual rights to meet a particular popular demand? Are the questionable benefits of banning all X-rated videos worth the sacrifice of any of these fundamental freedoms?
No-one denies that a democratic government has important responsibilities for the promotion of good order, protection of its citizens and the preservation of the rights of the individual. To this end, in a democratic society like ours, governments must uphold, and be seen to uphold, communal values, to exercise a conscience sanctioned by regular elections. However, communities are made up of individuals and naturally reflect many different points of view. To the greatest extent possible, members of the community must be allowed to express dissenting views. Even in times of national crisis, this right has
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .