The fundamental idea behind limiting free speech is simple. In a nation that strives to embrace the cultural diversity of all, it seems obvious that it is not okay to demonize someone for where they come from, let alone the color of their skin. Those who are calling for limitless free speech do not understand that free speech results in systematic racial exclusion and creates a normalization of demonization. As a professor of sociology and ethics, I have determined that it is important for me to educate you all on ‘the power of speech,’ as you progress through your education and integrate yourself into society.
In 1938, Julius Streicher, a prominent member of the Nazi party published a book called ‘the poisonous mushroom.’ And from it, I quote ‘Just as it’s often hard to tell a toadstool from an edible mushroom, so too, it is often hard to recognize the Jew as a swindler and a criminal,’ Streicher aimed to get across the message that Jewish people looked just like everybody else, but were poisonous just as the toadstool. Coming from a publication that had Nazi support gave it ‘authority’ that it would not usually have, whilst making Jewish people impossible to believe, consequently depriving them of their authority. You’re all familiar with the story of ‘the boy who cried wolf,’ and how one can destroy the credibility of one’s self, but not many think about how one can destroy the credibility of other people, and how that results in the silencing and oppression of ‘the other.’ Certain sayings, when said ‘authoritatively’ subordinate ‘the other,’ placing them on the bottom of the social ladder, and depriving them of basic respect and rights, while legitimizing certain treatment of them. I’m sure most of you have been bystanders to a racist remark, but the fact of the matter is, that the failure to dispute hateful speech, and to allow certain speakers to assume authority and speak in a way that implicates someone as inferior is how the systematic exclusion and indifference to violence against those on the bottom is normalized.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
This is why we, as a nation need to hold our politicians accountable for their fear-mongering acting as a catalyst for hate. Pauline Hanson in her decades of political experience has always managed to sustain an audience. Why? Fear. Back when Islam wasn’t at the forefront of hate, it was Pauline’s belief, and I quote, ‘We are in danger of being swamped by Asians.’ Before the Asians, Pauline concluded that it was the Italians and Greeks that were considered ‘a threat’ to ‘white’ Australia. And let’s not forget Fraser Anning who dubbed Islam as ‘the violent ideology of a sixth-century despot masquerading as a religious leader.’ These views have no place in Australia, let alone in parliament. Fraser and Pauline both spread fear and hatred, turning Australians against each other, which is exactly what terrorists want. Sure, Fraser was eventually outed of his seat in the senate, but at that point, it was too late. The damage has already been done, and the hatred and vilification have already been spread. The most disgusting part about the controversy surrounding Fraser is that he refused to issue an apology for his words. Let’s not all be naïve enough to believe that our words don’t have consequences. Those with the power to express themselves to a sizeable part of Australia should not be given the freedom to infringe upon the rights of others. Civility is ‘a social contract,’ and it needs to be enforced through personal responsibility but more importantly, through denunciation of those that aim to divide Australia.
Australia has had anti-vilification laws in place for almost three decades now, and the majority of vilification complaints in Australia are dealt with under civil law. Research conducted by Professor McNamara and Professor Gelber has conclusively found that in approximately 33% of complaints, the perpetrator agrees to ‘stop making’ discriminatory comments or agrees to apologize. Sure, these can be seen as positive outcomes, but there has been no change in the prevalence of hate speech around Australia. Inducing more legislation and anti-vilification laws is not going to prevent the occurrence of hate speech and magically rid the world of hatred. We must re-examine our society in general, drawing from our knowledge of previous generations and their exclusion of the other. What this nation needs, is to start a conversation and to create a cultural shift, and social shift away from hatred, and move towards acceptance of others, supporting those that are in the process of integrating themselves into our diverse society. If we can achieve this shift, perhaps we may someday successfully abide by our morals, and live up to the values that are key to our society.
When hate speech is reduced to simply being seen as the expression of ‘unpopular opinions,’ the physical impact of speech is not being taken into account. Speech is powerful, and giving authority to hate speech has repercussions that result in systematic racial exclusion, as well as normalizes the discrimination of the other. We need to hold our politicians accountable for contributing to this normalization of hatred. If we want to deconstruct the notion of ‘the other,’ and live in a unified society, we must learn to be more compassionate, kind, and empathetic to humanity.
Stuck on your essay?
