Free speech is a bedrock of democracy. But we should be clear on what it is. And what it isn’t. Essentially it means that, except in extreme circ*mstances you, an individual, cannot be prosecuted for expressing an opinion that the government does not like.
It is commonly accepted that the right to assemble and to protest is a manifestation of free speech. Thus, there has been an almost slavish tolerance, even on the part of many conservatives, towards these pro-Palestinian protests on the streets and on university campuses. Apparently, on the basis that the principle of free speech must be upheld at almost any cost.
But protests are more than just an expression of free speech. They are also political action. They are designed to pressure – even to intimidate – governments to act in a certain way. They attempt to circumvent the parliamentary process. The website of the Australian Attorney-General’s Office tells us:
The right to peaceful assembly protects the right of individuals and groups to meet and to engage in peaceful protest.
This right does not exist in the Constitution or the common law. In Australia, it is given force by international covenants to which we are signatory. Also, from the AG website:
Australia is a party to seven core international human rights treaties. The right to freedom of assembly and association is contained in articles 21 and 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and article 8(1)(a) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
And that is a good thing. Citizens should have the right to directly petition the government in this manner if they believe normal representations through their elected representatives will not be effective. But how inviolable is this right? It cannot be absolute. The A-G’s website tells us:
Derogation: Under article 4 of the ICCPR, countries may take measures derogating from certain of their obligations under the Covenant, including the right to freedom of assembly and association ‘in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed.
Limitation: In addition, under article 21 freedom of assembly may be subject to restrictions imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
I would argue that, in a practical sense, such inviolability as the right to protest possesses is limited by the extent to which a protest is designed to protect the rights and interests of Australian citizens from the actions or inactions of an Australian government. Ideally, it should relate to an issue that is within the power of an Australian government to redress. And protests must be proportionate. Their purpose is to send a message to government. Not to punish it, and by extension the Australian people. We punish governments at the ballot box.
These pro-Palestinian protests relate to matters which are outside the power of the Australian government. Certainly, the government could accede to demands to recognize Palestine, to condemn Israel and so forth. But none of these measures would have the slightest effect in the Middle East. Israel is fighting for its survival.
They do not represent the genuine interests of Australian taxpayers. They are grotesque and self-indulgent street theatre, and dangerously divisive at that. But it’s not just the offence to and intimidation of the Jewish community that is problematic. Encouraged by hate preachers and emboldened by useful idiots from our Marcuse-corrupted institutions, these protestors seem determined to entrench themselves as a despised minority in a country that has given them a home. That is a recipe for disaster. These protests are not an expression of differing political opinion but a flouting of values that are inimical to those upon which Australia was built. They are effectively a declaration of war on the West and its values. Many Australians will be asking themselves ‘just how fringe is this fringe group of extremist Muslims?’ And, worse, they are taking many of our youth with them.
Protests also come with a financial cost. NSW Premier Chris Minns revealed that policing a major protest can cost up to $1 million. What is the bill for the many pro-Palestinian protests across the country? My guesstimate, and I believe it’s a modest one, would be that these protests have cost the taxpayer well in excess of $100 million. How much more will we rack up before state governments say enough is enough?
Why should the ‘free speech’ of protestors impose a financial burden on taxpayers, rather than on the protest organisers? Some years ago the Andrews regime in Victoria tried to charge promoters of Milos Yiannopoulos’ speaking tour, but that’s not what I mean, not at all. His audience had to walk a gauntlet of lefties flinging abuse and worse, so of course VicPol had a responsibility to keep order. Weekly demonstrations that close streets and snarl traffic while keeping police from more pressing duties are a different matter entirely. At race meetings and footy matches, police are paid by organisers to be present and to regulate traffic. If state governments do not have the intestinal fortitude to stop these protests, they should at least bill the organisers for the police protection that they (the governments) deem essential, as they did the organisers of CPAC in 2022.
That we have, since 9 October, indulged these disruptive and hate-filled protests out of, in my view, a misplaced adherence to the doctrine of free speech, has now led to the situation in which imams can preach death to Jews with impunity and masked thugs can set fire to an MPs office without being labelled terrorists. We are reaping what we have sown. Recently, A/Prof Andy Smidt, writing in The Australian, said:
I watched a camp being set up in front of the main quadrangle with a sense of unease. The encampment was occupied by pro-Palestinian groups – many of whom were not university students or staff.
Staff were struggling to maintain the high standards of education due to the noise, disruption and protesters forcing their way into classrooms to make announcements. Many have resorted to working from home or taking leave.
In response, Scott has all but said Jewish students and staff must get used to feeling “uncomfortable” in the name of free speech.
Conflating the right to protest with free speech is fraught with danger. For one thing it equates action with speech. Free speech is a form of debate. You may not be in Parliament, or Council or whatever, but you do have the right to publicly express your opinion and, hopefully, influence enough elected members to embrace your position.
And if you feel strongly enough about your position, you might form an action group to gain strength in numbers. Your aim would be to convince government that your cause is so strongly supported that it should be taken notice of. You can do this by petition, or you can gather peacefully, outside Parliament House or wherever, to make your point. The greater the numbers the stronger will be your effect. Your aim would, or should, be to convince government to take your concerns seriously. This is a form of debate and is a legitimate exercise of free speech.
But the form of protest we have become accustomed to, and too accepting of, is not debating. It is political action. That, of itself, is not contentious, but it should allow us to impose suitable constraints without, at the same time, involving semantic contortions to accommodate a purist free speech position.
Protests elevate the mob over the individual, as we have seen with the reaction of pro-Palestinian protestors towards lone or small groups of counter-protestors. On October 21 last year, I watched a pro-Palestinian march in Sydney. It was escorted by a phalanx of 800 police officers – not to protect the marchers from attack by Zionists, but to protect them from themselves – to ensure they didn’t chant ‘Gas the Jews’, as they did on the Opera House steps. If a protest requires a police presence other than for minor traffic control, then it is not free speech.
If police have to prevent counter-protestors from appearing – as they routinely do – then this is not, by any stretch of the imagination, an exercise of free speech. Severely disrupting people as they go about their daily lives, as climate protestors love to do, is not free speech. Gathering outside synagogues to ‘support’ Palestine, by shouting ‘anti-Zionist’ slogans, is not free speech, even if the protest is essentially ‘peaceful’ i.e., that no physical violence occurs. Intimidation is not free speech. Desecrating Australian war memorials is not free speech, as Green’s leader Adam Bandt recently intimated.
Recently, speaking with Peta Credlin in relation to the invasion of Parliament House, Peter Dutton opined that our passive acceptance of months of aggressive and abusive protests have given a ‘social licence’ (to use a term that I normally abhor) to extremists to commit acts of unconscionable vandalism and intimidation. Or words to that effect. He is right. This manifestation of official impotence has its genesis in the laughable sentences often handed out to serious offenders in the ‘climate wars’ – on the grounds that their heart is in the right place.
Whether you like it or not, we are now at war. And in war we censor free speech. That is a serious step, not to be undertaken lightly nor without appropriate checks and balances. It should be the last freedom we curtail. But, in my view, the right to protest, which as we have seen can be so much more immediately destructive than someone standing on a soap box in the Domain, can and should be much more stringently regulated. And to facilitate this process, we must cease to cloak each and every protest with the mantle of free speech and thus proscribing it only when it involves physical violence or incitement to violence. These pro-Palestinian protests have wrought severe psychological violence on the nation. And as I said earlier, they are amassing a huge cost.
When it comes to the right to protest, the role of government is to uphold it. Not to roll out the red carpet for it, especially in its more noxious manifestations.
