Page 5228 - Week 16 - Thursday, 28 November 1991

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

---

The second point that I wish to draw from Justice Frankfurter's pronouncement really goes to the core issue. He identifies a general social interest in order and morality. This has been taken to suggest that the law may dispose of general views of an immoral character. These are said to have no essential value as a step to the truth and so they may be suppressed without loss.

Legislation to outlaw such views or ideas rests primarily on a desire to shape moral attitudes which may have a general impact upon behaviour.

Accordingly the New South Welsh racial vilification legislation was introduced as having a strong symbolic value - to make people realise what is and what is not acceptable to society.

That objective is perfectly admirable. But the law is not the proper vehicle to teach such morality. In a democracy the truth should never be proclaimed by the state. Clearly moral considerations do underpin the law but it is the act of murder, not anger or hatred, which is punished. Most relevantly - - -

Mr Berry: This is hardly relevant, Mr Deputy Speaker.

MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do you take a point of order on that, Mr Berry?

Motion (by Mr Berry) put:

That the question be now put.

The Assembly voted -

AYES, 14  NOES, 1 

Mr Berry Mr Stevenson
Mr Collaery
Mr Connolly
Ms Follett
Mrs Grassby
Mr Humphries
Mr Kaine
Dr Kinloch
Ms Maher
Mr Moore
Mrs Nolan
Mr Prowse
Mr Stefaniak
Mr Wood

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

---

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .