By: Chad Kent
Chad Kent Speaks
Earlier this week Andrew Bolt was found guilty of violating the Racial Discrimination Act in Australia for publishing an editorial with opinions that some of his fellow citizens found unacceptable. But who gets to decide what is acceptable?
No one should if we truly believe in the idea that all men are created equal. But Justice Mordy Bromberg and the politicians who passed the Racial Discrimination Act don’t believe in that concept. If they did, how could they pass a law that says everyone has a right free speech… except people who hold opinions that this group of politicians find unacceptable?
Yikes. I can’t wait to see what other rights they decide will only apply to their superior class of enlightened people.
To illustrate how ridiculous it is to ban speech, let’s look at it this way. If I state my opinion and you say it’s unacceptable and should be illegal – couldn’t I turn right around and argue that your opinion is unacceptable and should be illegal? In that case, how do we decide which one of us is the superior being who gets the final say?
Obviously, it all comes down to who is sitting in the judge’s chair. That’s why I would love to see if Justice Bromberg would change his opinion of this ruling if he were sitting in the defendant’s chair having his beliefs scrutinized while Andrew Bolt was sitting in the judge’s chair. My guess is he would – and that’s the point.
Hey, while we’re on the topic of scrutinizing Justice Bromberg’s point of view, let’s look at his claim this ruling shouldn’t discourage people from engaging in political debate:
Justice Bromberg said it was important to note his judgment did not forbid debate or articles on racial identity issues if done “reasonably and in good faith in the making or publishing of a fair comment”.
“Nothing in the orders I make should suggest that it is unlawful for a publication to deal with racial identification, including by challenging the genuineness of the identification of a group of people,” Justice Bromberg said. (emphasis added)
Nope… Nothing in this ruling will chill free speech. You know, except for the fact that if you try to write about racial identification and accidentally say something the state doesn’t like you’ll end up in court. But other than that…
Arguing that putting a person on trial for something he wrote shouldn’t discourage free speech is so stupid it’s painful. And the guy who made that statement is the same one who thinks he’s qualified to tell other people what they can’t say! If that doesn’t make it crystal clear for you why it’s absurd to ban speech then I don’t know what else to tell you.
