Australia’s Liberal Party no longer ‘liberal’

above: While Menzies was far from without fault, on many issues today's Liberal Party would be unrecognizable for him. 

Dr Tristan Ewins

Much is said about the clash between the liberal and Conservative wings of the Liberal Party of Australia.   Usually leading figures will speak of a ‘broad church’ which includes a diverse membership.  But the truth is that the Liberals continue to drift ever deeper into the hard Right.  Liberals will stand up for religious liberties (which there may be some kind of argument for) ;  but John Stuart Mill would turn in his grave if he was aware of Liberal policies on trade unions, charities, and attempts to shut down grassroots mass organisations such as GetUp!

The Encyclopedia Britannica identifies various rights as central to Classical Liberalism.  Freedom of association, assembly and speech amongst them.  Also: “freedom from fear of reprisal”, and of arbitrary arrest and punishment.   It also identifies free industrial organisation of workers as a necessary counter-balance in the marketplace.

Interestingly, iconic British liberal John Stuart Mill was even in some ways sympathetic with the socialist social experiments of Robert Owen in the 19^th Century.  (see: ‘On Socialism’, J.S.Mill, Prometheus Books, New York, 1976)

And while free markets are crucial to classical liberalism, various liberals are divided on the balance between public and private.  All liberals would oppose a ‘command economy’, and would demand a central space for ‘personal determination of needs structures via markets’. For some liberals, however, Hayek and Rand are seen as occupying ‘the extreme end of the spectrum’ ; but those theorists’ ideas are exactly those promoted by the Institute of Public Affairs - which has a powerful role influencing Liberal Party policy.  Before the 1970s, Hayek and Rand were ‘on the fringes’ in most Liberal and Conservative parties. Fanatical commitment to the progressive and open-ended dismantling the welfare state, social wage, social insurance and public sector would have once have been ‘out of place’ in ‘the Party of Menzies’.   Now those ideas are in ‘the mainstream’.  And for Conservatives, adherence to economic neo-liberalism has eclipsed ‘compassionate conservative’ tendencies.

By contrast with the original liberals, today’s Liberal Party of Australia is committed to the total dismantling of the power of organised labour.  Its ‘Ensuring integrity’ Bill has several aims.   Firstly, the bill (if passed) will take non-protected industrial action as being ‘criminal in nature’ ; and union leaders could thus be charged and imprisoned ; and unions themselves deregistered and ‘dismantled’.   It will enable government to “sack” union officials convicted of criminal offenses: which includes ‘industrial’ offenses such as unprotected industrial action, and entering workplaces to organise or inspect working conditions without notice.  Also: even ‘protected’ rights to industrial action will be able to be withdrawn if an ‘interested party’ argues it affects their interests.  The legislation will establish in many ways arbitrary punitive powers for government against workers and union officials.  While freedom to withdraw labour is a liberal right so too is freedom of association.

The Liberal Party is also now endeavouring to have mass-based progressive lobby group ‘GetUp!’ considered a branch of the ALP and the Greens ; and hence to restrict its rights to campaign in the lead up to elections, and on election day.  With a membership base of over a million Australians ‘GetUp!’ is obviously much broader than the ALP or Greens, and has organisational independence.  But these days the Liberal Party is simply interested in shutting down all opposition in a display of crude power politics.  This is the opposite of liberalism ; even if defined narrowly as ‘classical liberalism’.  True, the Liberals abrogated liberalism when they attempted to ban the Communist Party under Menzies as well. ('Doc' Evatt's defense of the liberal rights of Communists was an important victory for Labor at the time)  But the Communists never had over a million members: mums, dads, students, retirees. People who want a political voice: but many of whom are not ready to join a Party.

 Another example of Liberals abrogating liberal principles regards their treatment of charities and other organisations who must fear their tax-deductibility status being withdrawn if they criticise the government.   ‘Political’ speech is seen as compromising the work of charities by the Liberal-National Coalition ; but in fact this is just another rejection of real free speech: sacrificed on the altar of brute power politics.  Despite a decision by the High Court upholding the right of civic organisations like charities to engage in political advocacy, the Liberals and Nationals are still looking for ways to shut-down resistance.  Arguments have been made to ‘withdraw support’ for organisations ‘out of step’ with majority opinion. (whatever that is) 

The other side of this involves calls on the Left to tax churches ; which may include lay organisations at the grassroots level.  While the Liberal Party has largely abandoned liberalism in practice, the Left could do worse than to integrate liberal and socialist principles.

Finally we must consider the treatment of refugees and the unemployed by callous governments of the Australian Right-Wing. Open-ended incarceration with the effect of breaking the spirit and the will to live of those affected has no place in any account of liberal human rights. 

Meanwhile, ‘Work for the Dole’ comprises a form of labour conscription, and we must consider the real power relationships underlying these arrangements – as opposed to the fantasies of Hayek and Rand who only see ‘individuals freely entering into voluntary economic relationships’.  Sophisticated liberals deal with ‘the world as it is’ and not merely as it is supposed to be in the theories of the economic hard right.  In reality, both major parties are supportive of a policy of a “non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment”. (ie:  unemployment of approximately 5% with the point of containing inflation and wage pressures)  The point of this is exactly to restrict workers’ bargaining power at a time when the unemployed are vilified, wages are stagnant, and there is restricted consumer demand in the broader economy.  (in turn impacting on growth)

 In times past liberals would be capable of recognising the real-world imbalances of power in economic relationships: and hence support rights for trade unions, and a decent welfare safety net without punitive, unfair and unrealistic mutual obligation provisions.  

While some Conservative figures like Barnaby Joyce are finally recognising the threadbare and punitive nature of ‘Newstart’ unemployment insurance in Australia, Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, is determined to keep existing policies as a wedge against Labor.  While 'Robodebt' policies drive innocent people to desperation and suicide, the hope of decent bipartisanship has been cruelly crushed.  An ugly sentiment against the welfare-dependent and job seekers has been whipped up in the monopoly mass media in Australia for decades.  But the Liberals have all-too-readily seized upon the consequent public sentiment ; and have exploited it.

While progressives should always prefer a Labor Government to a Liberal Government in Australia, it is to be hoped that genuine liberals like John Hewson - who have not been ideologically captured by the Institute of Public Affairs – improve their fortunes in internal debates.  While this author is opposed to Blairite ‘Third Ways’ it would nonetheless be a relief to have bipartisanship on issues of basic human liberty and decency.   While the Liberals increasingly embrace Hayek and Rand on the economy, on social liberty they are effectively against libertarianism. (eg: on the rights of organised labour)

In Australia the nominal party of liberalism is anything but liberal. Even in the narrow sense of classical liberalism they fail to uphold core principles.  Labor could reconceive of itself as a liberal Party ; and occupy that space abandoned by the Liberal Party.  But for social democrats and democratic socialists that is not the answer if it means abrogating our own historic principles, and the rights and interests we defend.  But a more libertarian position on liberal rights on the Australian Left would apply significant pressure to the parties of the Australian Right.  To a some degree this is already happening.  It is a trend that needs to be developed further. 

Mostly Unpublished Progressive Letters ; May to August 2019 - PLS Have a Read and Discuss

Herald-Sun Letters (mostly unpublished)  May-July 2019

Be Wary of Conservative Double Standards on Free Speech

“Kevin Donnelly (14/5) again makes a case for his version of freedom of speech.  Of course there are problems with free speech as an ‘absolute’.  We cannot allow Holocaust Denial to lead to a culture of forgetting ; or worse – to prepare the ground for future atrocities. But every time you dilute free speech as an absolute you also contribute to a growing wedge with increasing ramifications.  Even as a Christian I recognise that much scripture is at odds with modern thinking , and its expression can be hurtful to various groups.  At the same time faith is central to millions of peoples’ lives ; and criminalisation will lead to repression and polarisation. (Labor is not suggesting any such thing) But Donnelly needs to be more consistent.  ‘Free speech’ means religious doctrines are open to criticism. ‘Free speech’ also means charities and NGOs are not blackmailed to hold their tongues in criticism of government. (as the Howard Government attempted)  It means an organisation with hundreds of thousands of members like GetUp! should not find itself ‘in the crosshairs of government’ – with the intention of silencing it at elections.  By all means campaign for freedom of speech – but be consistent.”

Social Insurance and Infrastructure

“A.Jensen (Your Say 30/5) attacks Labor for making social (public) investments ; and condemns NBN and NDIS as ‘unfunded’.  To begin with, Labor identified a series of tax loopholes (mainly for the wealthy) which could have been closed ; saving tens of billions. But the Liberals ran a scare campaign, including the threat of some totally non-existent ‘death tax.’ Public investments often make sense ; and without them we run the risk of becoming a US-style society with enormous classes of working poor and destitute. Welfare and social insurance provide a safety net without which the unemployed, the mentally ill, the aged and so on  - would find themselves homeless and desperate.  Indeed, we need more money for public housing. NDIS has the potential to greatly improve the lives of some of our most vulnerable Australians.  The NBN, also, was to be the information infrastructure on which the industries of the future arose. But the Coalition went for the cheaper option. Now we have cost blow-outs and inferior technology.   Public investment in infrastructure and services,  and collective consumption (eg: the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) is often in all our interests ; providing a ‘better deal’ ; leaving us all better off at the end of the day. “

Women’s Progress Welcome ; But Men are not ‘Essentially Bad’

“There has been welcome progress towards gender equality in recent years ; with emphasis on women’s sport ; equal representation in parliament ; debate about women’s disadvantage in the labour market, and attempts by the ALP to subsidise child care wages to rectify this in part.  But as Alan Barron (Your Say 3/6) appears to recognise, there has been another side to this story whereby ‘maleness’ appears to be ascribed  a ‘bad essence’.  Messages to the effect ‘girls can do anything’ are positive ; but boys must not feel ‘left out’ ; as if less is expected of them.  And as if ‘maleness’ is ‘toxic’. Women must be encouraged to assert themselves: to assert that “no means no” ; and men must be educated to respect this.  And men and women must take special care to be certain of consent where a couple are under the influence of alcohol. But should we eliminate all spontaneity?  Also the cause of gender equality has advanced in leaps and bounds.  But what about class-based inequality?   The struggle for gender equality needs to be but the first step in a much broader fight for equality.”

The Reality behind ‘Class Warfare’ Rhetoric

“The Herald-Sun (YS 4/6) talks about an end to “retrograde” “class warfare” from the ALP. But why is it not ‘class warfare’ when the Conservatives cut Health, Education, Welfare, public infrastructure and Social Insurance to pay for tax credits and tax cuts for the wealthy?  And gradually there is a vicious cycle of bracket creep and tax cuts for the well-off which is leading in the direction of ‘flat tax’.  Under which low and middle income earners would suffer. The fact is that under the Conservatives there is a constant state of class war ; which is gradually destroying our egalitarian traditions and leading us along the path of the US model: underclass, and great swathes of utterly destitute.  Mixed economies with strong welfare states can be strong economies as the Nordics (Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark) have shown.  The Herald-Sun may call it ‘class warfare’ ; but if the ALP gives up on distributive justice for workers and the disadvantaged it is giving up its core reason for being. What we need is a responsible media that stops throwing around loaded language to convince people to vote against their interests out of fear , and provides a balanced analysis instead.”

Labor and Workers must reject ‘Aspirational’ Ideology

“Lou Coppola (Your Say 10/6) condemns a ‘non-Aspirational’ Left which “denigrates” Australia. All countries have events in their histories they may now be less than proud of. But a strong democracy is capable of recognising both the good and the bad ; putting things right ; and then moving forward – our heads a bit higher.  For Australia’s part seminal moments include the granting of the suffrage for men and women ; granting indigenous people the vote, and then the Keating Government observing Land Rights ; and the establishment of Medicare as a more fair and efficient alternative to a US style private health system. This does not mean there’s not room to improve with a Treaty and further extension of universal health care into areas like dental and prosthetics. Meanwhile:  ‘aspirational’ Ideology around personal enrichment is a ploy for working class Australians to turn against their own interests for the sake of a pipe dream.  Most working class Australians see through it ; but even if the Conservatives can convince a minority it can be electorally influential.  Labor needs to confront this Ideology and maintain that tax cuts for the rich and austerity are not in the interests of workers.”

What’s at stake with the  CFMMEU and ‘Ensuring Integrity’

“(14/6)  “The John Setka affair is being exploited as a pretext to push through hard-right-wing anti union laws that are undemocratic and overrun citizens’ liberal rights.  The proposed laws would not only see the prosecution of leaders ; but the dissolution of unions themselves, leaving workers defenceless.   So much for freedom of association!   (and what happens to workers' collectively-held assets via their unions?) Without collective organisation in unions, workers have no defence of their rights and interests but government.  And government definitely cannot always be relied upon.  Without unions and without a right to withdraw labour workers are reduced to a condition somewhat similar to slavery.  Whether in defence of wages and working conditions ; or the promotion of safety ; or political industrial action to protest against unjust laws : industrial liberties must be preserved if a society is to honestly call itself liberal and democratic.  The areas which are the responsibility of the CFMMEU are also highly sensitive to the power of the broader labour movement to defend workers interests’ ; and if it ever comes to it – to defend democracy itself.  The CFMMEU’s strength also provides the opportunity to assist industrially weaker unions.  If necessary the broad labour movement must be willing to take action to render the ‘Ensuring Integrity ‘ legislation ‘the dead letter of the law’.  The case of Clarrie O’Shea in 1969 is instructive here.

Theophanous should rethink Call for Rightward Shift

“Theo Theophanous (17/6) urges Labor to ‘move to the Centre’. But the ‘Centre’ is relative, and with the Conservatives dictating the terms, it usually means shifting Right. He advocates passing the Coalition’s tax legislation in full ; avoiding ‘tax and spend’ policies.  With a Recession probably looming, that would mean redistribution to the wealthy, and massive austerity down the track ; making aged care reform impossible. Without social wage and social insurance expansion ; without progressive tax ; Labor is no longer a Social Democratic Party. Labor’s problems were confusion re: policy complexity; and scare campaigns (eg: the ‘Death Tax’) which cut through ; supported by a $60 million campaign by Clive Palmer which redirected preferences. That, and high unemployment in Queensland, with the misassumption Adani would create many jobs. Labor must be ‘progressively gradualist’, arguing for moderate increased progressive taxes in the vicinity of 1% to 1.5% of GDP.  (in addition to rescinding regressive Liberal Tax Cuts) It must be clear these do no hurt lower to middle income earners ; and that voters get ‘value for money’ in health, education, infrastructure, social insurance. If we accept the Coalition’s terms of reference in tax we let the Conservatives impose a ‘policy straight-jacket’ preventing social wage and social insurance expansion indefinitely.”

Need to Reforge Working Class as a “Class for Itself”

“Jeff Kennett argues that with widespread deindustrialisation and the existence of some very high wage jobs that ‘the working class no longer exists’. The working class has always included wage labourers exploited by business ; but has been widely reinterpreted to include public sector workers such as nurses and teachers.  The most important aspect of being ‘working class’ is not whether one is ‘blue collar’ or ‘white collar’, but that workers must sell their labour in order to survive.  What is true is that consciousness of class is falling ; partly due to a fragmentation of class identity with deindustrialisation.  But the reality is that ‘as a class in itself’ the working class still exists. And the challenge for the labour movement is to restore a sense of shared identity and interest amidst diversity. So the working class arises as 'a class for itself' in the broad sense. As for the prosperity Kennett alludes to ; the median wage is about approximately $53,000.  Which means half of all workers earn $53,000/year or less. “
https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/how-much-do-you-need-to-earn-to-be-rich-in-australia/news-story/cd7e6647199773c56ad5a9270c7aab87

Left must not Shrink Back from the True Reality of ‘Class Warfare’

“There’s an old saying on the Left:  “they only call it class warfare when we fight back”. To its discredit Labor during the election said little about the massive austerity that would necessarily follow those tax cuts. (the Coalition said nothing about this)  Labor proposed a traditional centre-left platform: closing tax loopholes to deliver a modest windfall which would have enabled cancer and dental care, subsidised child care, money for TAFE and more. This is labelled ‘class warfare’.  But when the Coalition restructures the tax system so workers on lower and middle incomes pay proportionately much more of the burden (moving towards a ‘flat tax’) this is lauded as ‘reform’. And also when it abolishes Penalty Rates.  Labor needs the focus and resolve to emphasise the coming austerity (on hospitals, schools, aged care, infrastructure) all through this term of government.  And so (in government) withdraw ‘phase 3’ which delivers $95 billion to the wealthy over only the first five years.  Politics is a continual ‘tug of war’ between labour, capital and citizens.   If we refuse to fight back for fear of the ‘class warfare’ label we have lost before we even begin.  That’s the point of it.”

Unemployed must be Treated with Decency

“A recent Herald-Sun article was Opinion dressed up as reporting. (A.Galloway, Insult to Taxpayers, Payments to Bludgers Withheld ; 31/7)   The object of the article was to inspire ‘outrage’ that job-seekers had missed appointments for possible jobs)  But as the article itself concedes, mutual obligation is very severe when it comes to Newstart, and the people in question had their payments suspended.   Also, Newstart payments are only approximately $40 a day ; imposing harsh conditions of poverty ; and are hardly a ‘lifestyle choice’.  Those on Newstart are hard pressed to feed themselves and put a roof over their head, let alone pay for smart clothes, a computer and so on – necessary in the modern world to search for work.  For many: disabled, older unemployed, regional unemployed – the search for work is almost hopeless. And yet we persist with promoting this loathing for the unemployed.  The real point of this regime is to create a ‘whip of hunger and utter destitution’ so jobseekers are forced to take any job no matter the pay and conditions.  This ‘reserve army of labour’ provides employers with ‘the whip hand’ and helps drive down wages and conditions for hundreds of thousands of other jobseekers.”

‘The Age’ Letters May to July 2019  (Mostly unpublished)

Democracy and the ‘Fair Go’ at Stake as Labor considers its Options

“(26/5) If Labor abandons distributive justice it more or less abandons its reason for being.  Labor needs to commission research from a multiplicity of sources to minimise the chances for error. Then it needs to actively campaign in order to restore support for a traditional social democratic redistributive agenda; which restores progressivity to the tax system with a focus on corporations and the top 10%.  And also full indexation of the bottom few tax brackets. Issues like superannuation tax concessions remain crucial for the Budget and distributive justice ; costing tens of billions annually.  Labor also needs to explain how the mix of bracket creep and regressively-structured tax cuts make the income tax system more and more unfair.  Labor needs a deep and broad policy agenda.  But Morisson’s victory shows how a narrow and negative message can ‘cut through’.  As well as the shallow but effective construction of the ‘ScoMo’ ‘everyman’ persona.  But is democracy viable any longer when the ‘Power Resources’ of the Right are overwhelming ; where a billionaire can buy an election ; where the Murdoch monopoly mass print media has so little effective competition ; and the Government is canvassing legislation to ban GetUp! From campaigning?”

https://www.news.com.au/national/federal-election/why-australias-superannuation-scheme-is-stacked-against-you/news-story/9ddbc4ffb7c59384dbc6827cc4f74464

Why the Anti-Union Stance at ‘The Drum’?

“The other night watching ‘The Drum’ on the ABC I was appalled to see a virtual consensus that anti-union laws enabling the deregistration of unions who take unprotected industrial action could be justified. The line of argument seemed to be that since corporations should be accountable if breaking the law, so too should unions.  But what this all really begs is the question of whether or not workers should have a right to withdraw their labour – full stop. This issue is now much bigger than John Setka and whatever indiscretions he has made.  The proposed laws could be a weapon with which to break the labour movement in this country.  As Sally McManus argued some time ago now – laws are not necessarily right.  Sometimes civil disobedience is justified – including industrial action.  If unions cannot take industrial action workers’ options are very limited to defend their interests. We cannot let John Setka be used as a cover for union-busting legislation which will weaken workers conditions, rights, strength and liberties in this country.”

‘The Age’ Shifts Right on Tax Debate

“The Age (22/6) argues that middle and high income earners will pay some of the highest income taxes in the world without the Conservatives’ $160 billion tax cut plan.  But ‘The Age’ has been unclear what it means by ‘middle income’ in the past.  In fact the Median (ie: middle) income is approximately $53,000/year.   $120,000/year is actually a very high income compared with most.  Also the gap between Australian and OECD average tax rates is almost 7 percentage points.  (or approaching $119 billion/year)  The Coalition’s tax cuts would mean massive austerity (worse in a recession) ; and maybe some of the gap would be made up by raising the GST (as in many European countries with their VATs) and a negative distributive outcome for genuine low and middle income earners.  Raising the top threshold of the 32.5% tax bracket from $120,000 to $200,000 would very significantly ‘flatten’ the overall system.  Some other countries may also have inheritance taxes, wealth taxes, strong land taxes ; but Australia has always depended highly on income tax.   The trend is towards less equality. But we don’t HAVE to follow the trend.  And there was a time I expected better from ‘The Age’.”

https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/how-much-do-you-need-to-earn-to-be-rich-in-australia/news-story/cd7e6647199773c56ad5a9270c7aab87?fbclid=IwAR0PdJydLNCE2-ltF_xHhybr8HGQASEPH4OPQLaG_OkyVMTzyXXRIWIuQ50

https://data.oecd.org/tax/tax-revenue.htm

https://www.budget.gov.au/2019-20/content/tax.htm

Welcome Consideration on Civics Education in Victoria: But Stronger Action Necessary

“It was good to read that the Victorian State Government is set to emphasise Civics education (17/7), partly in response to the voices of students themselves.  This must include processes, parties and institutions: but it must be about more than this as well.  Education for active and critical citizenship must explore interests, values and pathways to civic activism.  That includes “ideological literacy”: an appreciation of the political spectrum from far left to centre, and to the far right. As well as libertarian and authoritarian influences.  Importantly: there need to be nuanced understandings. Political categories like ‘social democracy’, ‘liberalism’, ‘democratic socialism’, ‘conservatism’ have historically meant different things to different people.  Opportunities for activism include parties, representative democracy, and social movements. The aim is not to indoctrinate: but rather this calls upon the professionalism of teachers to impart knowledge, wisdom and understanding in an inclusive way. Students should go out into the world ready to participate as active and informed citizens ; always ready to widen their horizons and make informed political decisions and interventions.  This is about empowerment ; and that empowerment is good for democracy.”

QandA's Virtues and Vices - and the self-censoring of the Left

Above:  Tony Jones  is the most talented candidate for hosting QandA ; But he has appeared obviously uncomfortable in the wake of Conservative pressures to exclude Left-wing and other critical opinions

Despite the continual carping on by the Conservatives in this country – to the effect that the ABC harbours ‘an ‘obvious’ left-wing bias’ – I have come to fear that rather the opposite is becoming true.  Programs like ‘The Drum’ seem increasingly slanted towards having Conservative or right-libertarian viewpoints at the core of their programs.  Pluralism is certainly no bad thing. But the impression I get is that radical-Left viewpoints are often excluded.  (though I am relieved when I see figures like Australia Institute spokesperson Richard Denniss included on the ABC) 

The most recent example of the QandA broadcast from the “Festival of Dangerous Ideas” was perhaps an exception to the trend of silencing radical perspectives – and one that had host Tony Jones appearing very nervous and uncomfortable. Naomi Klein’s confident and powerful presentation of genuinely radical viewpoints – including opposition to the detention of refugees, and her arguments for Western responsibility in the face of the Syrian refugee crisis – certainly would not have pleased Abbott.  Nor would have her fluent, articulate and effective critique of capitalism.  Jones’ absence from recent QandA programs perhaps hammers home the point that ‘the show might go on without him’.  Though he is arguably still be most talented and competent candidate for the job.

‘QandA’ especially has been ‘under siege’ for years now; with the assault picking up substantially over recent months.  QandA has a long history of supporting pluralism in the sense of including left-of-centre viewpoints neglected in much of the monopoly mass media.  This is what Abbott cannot stand.  We have a Government which doesn’t really believe in democracy and pluralism at all.  It wants to shut-down and silence opposition wherever possible.  Not just the media, but for instance charities who dare to engage in political criticism as well.   And of course there is the age-old aim of ‘smashing’ the trade union movement and leaving all working people vulnerable to the whims and agendas of employers.  A country without an effective labour movement probably would not have identified the threat of ‘WorkChoices’ until it was too late.  WorkChoices is not 'buried and cremated'.  It has been locked away to be redeployed some day when peoples' memories have faded; and the labour movement has become too organisationally weak to mobilise public opinion effectively.

“At the same time decidedly Left-wing participants such have sometimes appeared quite uncomfortable.  (well, that is my strong impression)  And I would suggest that this is because such participants have been under pressure ‘not to come across as being overtly radical’ lest they ‘play into Abbott’s hands’.   For example I remember noticing how with Billy Bragg’s appearance there was very little in the way of discussing socialist politics.  I hold Billy Bragg in the highest regard and cannot understand why else he may have come to sidestep the question with his appearance at QandA.  Yet if we hold our tongues for fear of a Conservative fear-campaign we largely concede the field to our enemies.”

Yes QandA should be ‘balanced’.  In the sense that it should include Left, Centre-Left, Centrist, Conservative, liberal, and even libertarian viewpoints.  Even if the ideal of a ‘Perfect Speech Situation’ (Habermas) is impossible to realise absolutely – that’s not to say we shouldn’t quest after that ideal.  But once we understand that Abbott’s agenda is not about ‘balance’ – but rather about SILENCING opposition – we should appreciate how futile it is to adopt a policy of appeasing him.

Furthermore on this theme: The ‘Zaky Mallah’ incident was blown grossly out of proportion.  It was run with as a weapon with which to bludgeon the program into compliance.  While his (Mallah’s) sympathies may not be ours, nonetheless the observation that anti-Islamic rhetoric was contributing to ‘radicalisation’ was not far off the mark.  The fear campaign  - a ‘moral panic’ that was whipped up in the aftermath of his comments - was ridiculous. 

We have a government who are basically pursuing the aim of transforming the ABC into a State propaganda mouthpiece.  No longer about facilitating a diverse and participatory public sphere, the government wants an ABC which proclaims the position of ‘Team Australia’ – so-called. 

Here dissidents are considered 'traitors'.  Pluralism is to be ‘stamped out’.  In reality the dissidents who defend rights and liberties against the reactionary push to stigmatise and delegitimise them  could be seen as the real ‘patriots’.  We see it in the mass media all the time now: consistently unfavourable coverage of protests, strikes etc.  And I don’t mean that the dissidents are ‘patriots in some jingoistic sense.’   But in the sense of defending that which perhaps is most worth celebrating and defending in this country.

Finally, the recent Tweet on QandA that subjected Abbott to vile innuendo did nothing for the cause of defending free and inclusive speech, as well as genuine pluralism – through the platform of the ABC.  We cannot ‘vacate  the field’ when it comes to values, legitimate interests and policy.   But we must not allow blatant ‘provocations’ that will probably just ‘blow up in our collective faces’.

Perhaps the Left would be stronger, here, were we less ambiguous when it comes to free speech.  The Conservatives talk about liberty when it comes to Andrew Bolt’s speech.   But they want to delegitimise industrial liberties as well as free assembly and civil disobedience -  with an eye to crushing the social forces they oppose themselves to.   Yet when George Brandis talks about ‘peoples’ right to be bigots’ – as anti-intuitive as this may be ; and as dangerous it is to ‘let that Genie out of the bottle’ – there are real questions about the boundaries of free speech.  The tighter we limit free speech the more likely it is that our enemies will apply those standards to us as well one day.  The Americans turned free speech into an absolute by making it a foundational element in their very Constitution ; and the associated ‘foundational myths’.  This can create a free-for all for bigots on the one hand.  But it can provide a shield for civil liberties and expression as well. 

Perhaps we need to be more reserved when it comes to limiting speech.  True hate speech and morally vile examples such as Holocaust denial – which one day could result in history repeating itself – are exceptions.  Let Andrew Bolt have his rights.  But remind him that we do not all have the platforms that he enjoys.  Remind him that genuine pluralism demands a more diverse array of viewpoints in the mass media.  Including the Murdoch Press.  Remind him that progressive viewpoints are systematically excluded in so much of the monopoly mass media – and especially the Murdoch Press which dominates the highly-influential tabloid market.  

For freedom of speech to be more meaningful it needs to be accompanied by OPPORTUNITY for speech.  That must mean a participatory public sphere.  But also it should mean reform of our educational curriculum with the aim of developing peoples critical faculties – including political literacy.  That is:  Not some one-sided indoctrination process; but rather encouraging people to be active and informed citizens ; empowered to make informed choices in keeping with their interests – but also their values.

Let’s defend a pluralist and critical agenda for QandA – serving as a platform for an inclusive participatory democracy.  But let’s not get in the habit of self-censoring ourselves in instances when there are important opinions of substance which deserve to be tested in the public sphere.

Andrew Bolt on ‘Charlie Hedbo’ and Free Speech: A Response

 

 

The arguments about free speech are often complex.  But freedoms and liberties must be defended

 

Tristan Ewins, Jan 11th, 2014

Andrew Bolt has fired another salvo against the Australian Left (Heald-Sun, Jan 10^th 2015); this time accusing the Left – and what he ironically calls ‘the ruling classes’ of this country – of ‘giving in’ in the face of Terror.  He argues that the French satirical publication ‘Charlie Hedbo’ was “almost alone” and that this emboldened the killers.   He argues that ‘the Left’ is hypocritical in the sense of constantly satirising, attacking and mocking Christianity – while claiming Islamophobia in response to critiques of Islam.  For Bolt censorship and self-censorship mean ‘the Terrorists have won’.   Bolt also condemns the racial vilification laws which he claims led to the ‘banning’ of two of his articles.  Bolt complains of ‘mainstream’ journalists ‘celebrating’ this decision; though surely this is a bit ingenuous given his claim to be ‘Australia’s most read columnist’.      He also attacks Australia’s migration program in so far as it welcomes “mass immigration from the Third World”.  Finally he claims Islam’s claim to be ‘a religion of peace’ is false in light of Koranic scripture urging the deaths of those who mock the Prophet Muhammed.   

Where do we start in responding to Bolt?  

On the matter of Left hypocrisy I personally sometimes cut a lone figure in requesting respect and sensitivity towards the Christian faith in the face of sometimes-hateful attacks.   The Christian emphasis on ‘turning the other cheek’ perhaps suggests a certain acceptance even in the face of criticism.  Rational (not hateful) criticism, indeed, is welcome – and has informed a shift in Christian thinking over recent decades to made an accommodation with liberalism.  Though in earlier centuries some church leaders were complicit in repression and Terror.  

There are liberal Muslims just as there are liberal Christians.  Though in the West liberal Christianity is more prevalent. There are relatively rare Christians who still advocate an unreformed interpretation of Scripture. But most today have turned from ‘Biblical literalism’ in areas such as Creationism for instance.  (instead Genesis is held by some  to be a parable containing a mystery which few understand; Though this should not mean we close our minds to the prospect of mysteries as yet not understood – for instance free will and consciousness itself)

The shift towards liberalism; of ‘turning the other cheek’; and the rejection of literalism has moderated what social conflicts may have arisen between liberalism, secularism and Christianity.  These tendencies in Christianity reveal  the falsehoods in many hostile caricatures of the faith.  We have had ‘Piss Christ’ and ‘The Last Temptation of Christ’, and yet many Christians accept that even while this may be hurtful, it is part of the liberal pluralist order we live in.

But where does Islam stand?   Just like there is liberal Christianity and Reform Judaism, also there are liberal movements within Islam.  There have been attempts to moderate the message of Islam.  Greater gender equality is promoted as well as pluralistic and individual interpretations of the Koran.  There is respect for democracy and human rights; slavery is rejected.   Yet arguably if one looks around the world today, both Shia and Sunni regimes – from the Saudis to the Iranians – these regimes have been reticent in adopting a liberal/reform orientation.   There are barbaric instances of corporal and capital punishment; women are often second class citizens; sexuality is stigmatised. Yet in a throwback to an earlier time self-proclaimed Christians in Uganda have sought to criminalise homosexuality as well – with potential life sentences for those practicing their sexuality.   

In response to Bolt it is fair enough for a democracy to hesitate before welcoming any who do not share basic precepts when it comes to liberal and human rights.  To welcome refugees is an exception – as there is the global responsibility to provide refuge for the persecuted.  And often the wars which refugees flee are proxy conflicts – the consequence of ‘Great Power’ interventions. 

It ought be noted that in the past similar arguments have been deployed to prevent communists and other left radicals from being accepted into our society. But while in the past many were deluded about the reality in ‘really-existing’ communist regimes, their orientation was nonetheless progressive when it came to defending liberal rights at home; as well as the rights of women, indigenous peoples, those of queer sexuality, the industrial liberties of workers and so on.  But anti-modernist radicals – whether they are Sunnis from Saudi Arabia, Shia from Iran, or Christians from Uganda – pose a potential threat to liberalism if ever their challenge to Modernity reached the critical point.  That is for example in Australia: if ever they comprised so formidable a bloc as to hold decisive political and cultural leverage

Against this – Despite some peoples’ over-blown fears, those of Islamic faith comprise only two per cent of the Australian population.  And well-intentioned engagement between liberals and Muslims could result in many more Muslims shifting into the liberal camp. Much as occurred with Christianity.  An uncontrolled influx could change this; but that is not the situation.

Yet that engagement is threatened by the ‘culture war warriors’ who would preach a message of civil conflict on religion rather than engagement.  Bolt is sceptical of Muslims claiming that theirs is ‘a religion of peace’.  But we would do well to remember it was not all that long ago that religion was cited as a rationale and a justification for centuries of colonialism and Imperialism of various European Great Powers.  Today strategic interventions and proxy wars are also justified on the basis of liberal and democratic Ideology.  But beneath the surface a more complex picture emerges.  Great Power bases in Syria and Qatar; fears over an Iranian bomb; attempts to isolate Iran through destabilising its Syrian ally (with over 200,000 dead!); the Syrian intervention backfiring with the rise of Islamic State – and yet even Islamic State could be could be seen by some as a counterbalance to Iran in the region. It is often very cynical. (the previous balance of power was wrecked through George Bush’s Second Gulf War, which ironically for the time was supported by Israel).

Finally we come to Bolt’s cries of censorship.

Censorship is a difficult question, and interestingly today it is self-proclaimed right-libertarians who advocate unmitigated and unmoderated free speech in the face of suggestions from others on the Left that speech be regulated – whether through state interference in the monopoly mass media, or through enforcing stronger racial discrimination laws.  

There is a lot to be reviled in the American settlement when it comes to their threadbare social security and welfare safety net; the neglect and rescission of workers’ liberties; oppressively low minimum wages; tolerance of homelessness on a mass scale…  But despite the hypocrisies of McCarthyism in times past for instance, ‘free speech’ is enshrined in the American Constitution and as part of American identity.  This notion of ‘absolute’ and ‘inalienable’ rights gives the far right conditions under which they can organise.  But it also provides a vital protection for the Left which could be utterly crucial, perhaps, in the future.  Without the argument of ‘free speech’ Doc Evatt would most certainly have failed in his defence of the liberal rights of Australian Communists.

In Australia we face similar dilemmas.  Andrew Bolt’s comments about indigenous Australians were hurtful, offensive and I believe they were cynical. Indigenous identity is about more that the colour of ones’ skin.  And preferential assistance through Abstudy, for instance, is intended to ‘close the gap’ when it comes to educational opportunity. Arguably ‘Closing the Gap’ needs to be a core aspect in a future Treaty.

Though Justice Bromburg, who decided on the Bolt case, insisted that he was not banning Bolt from sincerely debating the issue of indigenous identity.  And Bolt-critic Chelsea Bond argued that Bolt was not actually a racist.  Yet Bond argues that Bolt’s approach: “reveals his own anxiety toward the dilution of the 'coloniser's' identity, power and privilege.”   Bolt was exploiting these anxieties for cultural and political gain; and to this author therefore his endeavours were cynical in nature. 

There are important arguments here – for instance the need for a cultural settlement which reconciles the plurality of Australian identities – including that of pre-multi-cultural and Anglo identity and culture – as a means of ‘heading-off’ grievances, far-right organisation and irrational conflicts into the future.  (Although there never was a ‘mono-cultural’ Australia; and a past-world of Anglo/Irish tension is forgotten now by many)  Rejection of an ‘older’ Australian identity could drive many into the arms of the Reaction.

But should Bolt’s cynical comments have literally been BANNED? Certainly Bolt himself appears intolerant of any place for radical progressive speech in this country. His depiction of the ABC as a mouthpiece of the Left plays up to a now familiar Right-discourse around supposed Left-cultural-elites’ versus ‘the ordinary people’ – ‘the masses’.  This perspective was developed by Constitutional Monarchist and Conservative David Flint.  It is intended to remove any and almost all space available for the ‘genuine Left’ to be heard.   The ABC appears to feel it needs to prove ‘it is not radical’.  And at the same time the ABC increasingly leans towards ‘Centrist’ and ‘Centre-Right’ commentary.

This discourse on ‘Elites’ is deployed in order to play to cultural anxieties; while at the same time downplaying the class interests of the great majority of working people, as well as the marginal and the working poor.  American author Joe Bageant has compellingly written in his “Deer Hunting with Jesus” book how in the United States how ‘the white working poor’ are increasingly propagandised by right-wing Ideology; and how this process is inflamed by ‘class based putdowns’.  (indeed: we could also raise such language such as ‘white trash’ – which at once vilify on the basis of class AND race)  American liberalism’s de-prioritisation of social class as an unifying issue inflames the problem further; and the Labor Party in Australia might be seen as falling into a similar trap. 

The answer is not to ban conservative speech. Though perhaps there are exceptions such as Holocaust Denial – which could lead to ‘a culture of forgetting’ – and in the long term even a rehabilitation of fascism. (or even fascism’s worst historical manifestation, Nazism)  But every time we make an exception to free speech and weaken its absolute nature we potentially provide our enemies the very weapons that could be turned against us into the future.   Also – while perhaps an impossible ideal, Jurgen Habermas’s ‘Perfect Speech Situation’ is such an ideal as to be worth questing after in many respects.  Along with pluralism and acceptance of mediated conflict engagement is also a potentially core-foundation for liberal democracy. 

The problem is that on the Left we simply do not have the resources to be heard and considered alongside the cacophony of right-wing viewpoints.  So we are far from a ‘Perfect Speech Situation’.  Censorship is not the answer;  but the articulation of a broad new historic bloc is.  What is needed is a united front against domination and injustice.  That is to mobilise the necessary resources to bring about what Austrian Social Democrats once called ‘growth from within’ – but on a broader basis -  amidst disciplined solidarity.  There is scope for ‘asymmetrical cultural struggle’ with the rise of the internet.  But also a need to promote REAL pluralism via public and community media; involving an inclusive exchange across the entire spectrum – save for the far right.  The same inclusive pluralism must guide reform of school curricula also.

But none of this demands the silencing of Andrew Bolt.  Rights might not be absolute – especially in the midst of extreme circumstances.  But we all have a duty to avoid the escalation of civil conflict to the point where brute repression and Terror become reality. We can challenge Andrew Bolt without banning his speech.  And we can show solidarity with Charlie Hedbo by confronting the associated issues openly and open-mindedly – but avoid an escalation of rhetoric which would only polarise our society along religious and ethnic grounds.  And we must learn the lessons of past interventions – for instance in Iraq – which created the conditions for the war in Syria, and also the rise of the Islamic State movement.

Finally – without supressing speech – a discourse on ‘responsible’ speech should aim to avoid language of extreme escalation and polarisation on the grounds of religion or race. 

We must be uncompromising in defending rights of speech, assembly, association, conscience, as well as other liberties. (eg: industrial liberties)  The mass rallies in France and Australia demonstrate that Charlie Hedbo is now far from alone: Hundreds of thousands have mobilised to support free speech; and to reject intimidation through Terror.

But ideally freedom should be balanced with honest self-criticism. This may seem to go ‘against the spirit’ of Charlie Hedbo.   But it might be a precondition for the engagement which could promote long-term harmony between religion and liberal rights in this country.