Page 3589 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 8 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEVENSON (3.32): Tolerance is indeed the virtue that we should practise and encourage when it comes to racism; but is there any more tolerant nation within Asia when it comes to immigrants and those of another culture than Australia? It has been my joy to travel to some 30 countries around the world. When I look at the tolerance we show, I firmly believe that we have set examples for many nations. The key is that we should educate, not legislate. There are many examples in Australia where legislation on tolerance has been used instead of education. The objective of a law against comments which may be looked upon as being racist may be admirable, but the law is not the correct vehicle to adopt. You may well curb someone's tongue, but do you curb their thoughts or their feelings or what is in their heart?
Geoffrey Blainey, in an article in the West Australian on 12 May 1984 titled "The false fear of being called racist", made some valuable comments. I quote:
In India some people are untouchables. We view things differently here. Instead, we have ideas which are untouchable.
Members of the Federal Parliament and many community leaders have been reluctant in publicly questioning our large-scale Asian immigration for fear of being contaminated, for fear of being called racist. In years to come, historians might perhaps wonder why Australians in public life were so easily blackmailed by a verbal threat which is often irrational and false.
He continued:
The word racism has degenerated. At one time it embodied a plea for toleration, but it has increasingly become the pet word of the intolerant. Originally a word favoured by those who believed in rational argument, it is increasingly used by those wishing to avoid rational argument.
Freedom of speech is the most important issue here. Freedom of speech in Australia has traditionally been limited only by laws relating to sedition, incitement, libel, and using abusive, threatening or insulting words. Quite importantly, precedents limit the range of those laws. There was a major case in America and Justice Felix Frankfurter of the US Supreme Court said:
... insulting or fighting words, by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite immediate breach of the peace, these utterances have no essential value as a step to truth.
I highlight "fighting words". Threats of violence or incitement to violence should not be condoned.
Public debate on matters that should be discussed is a different matter. Immigration should be able to be discussed freely. It gives the community an opportunity to hear all sides of the debate. In relation to legislation curbing people's right to freedom of speech, Professor Lauchlan Chipman said:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .