Peter Coleman: Charlie, unity under 18c... and basic security

Jan 13, 2015 at 05:51 pm by Staff


In the wake of the Paris attack and calls for 'visible unity' on freedom of speech, Australian publishers are caught in the middle, urging 'you are not Charlie Hebdo' while reviling the terror action, writes Peter Coleman.

In news and comment in recent days, some newspapers have distanced themselves from the global 'Je suis Charlie' campaign, arguing the French satirical magazine would not have survived under Australia's laws.

Contentious section 18c of the country's racial discrimination act prohibits acts likely to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" someone on grounds of race or ethnicity, although there are exceptions (in 18b) for artistic works, scientific debate and fair comment.

Plans to excise the clause or modify it by removing the words 'offend' and 'insult' - discussed after a 2011 finding that two of Herald-Sun columnist Andrew Bolt's opinion pieces broke the law - were abandoned last year. It may now be academic whether 'humiliate' and 'intimidate' would have survived, although the debate has been reopened this week.

But while world leaders and the world express their outrage at last week's gunning down of 12 people at the Paris magazine's offices - including editor and principal cartoonist Stéphane Charbonnier and cartoonists Jean Cabut, George Wolinski and Bernard Verlhac - a different debate is also underway in Australia.

In The Australian today, Joe Kelly writes that restrictions on free speech would prevent the magazine being published in this country. He quotes human rights commissioner Tim Wilson that restrictions in section 18c would "ensure it would be shut down".

Wilson says the Paris attack "is a wake-up call for a lot of people who rhetorically support free speech but when it comes to the nub would choose political advantage over sensible reform".

Media law experts including Minter Ellison partner Peter Bartlett - who advises Fairfax Media in Victoria - and Justin Quill, who is used by The Australian, agreed cartoons of the type published by Charlie Hebdo would be likely to attract a complaint in Australia under current legislation. Bartlett warns that there was already "some evidence of self-censoring", given caution around the existing racial discrimination laws.

A leader in Brisbane's Sunday Mail - which began with the words 'You are not Charlie Hebdo' - adds that it is 'basic manners' to "at least try to show respect for the beliefs and cultures of people who are different to us". Ignoring the possible hypocrisy of a lecture here on "being deliberately provocative, and therefore often tasteless - and confronting", it's a valid point.

And no, we're not suggesting Charlie Hebdo was right despite its outspoken tradition: A letter-writer to an American website put it quite well with, "Charlie sowed hatred and then expected a crop failure".

This however, is a case of - whether or not you agree with a view - defending the right to express it. Earlier the World Association of Newspapers' World Editors Forum was among those calling on newspapers to continue to defend liberty and to display 'visible unity' following the attack. Others included the Newspaper Association of America and the Global Editors Network.

"The right to think, write and speak freely is democracy's deepest foundation, and must be defended without reservation," WEF president Erik Bjerager said.

He asked editors to show solidarity by adding their voice through a simple message that will support the organisation's drive to increase safety for all journalists and to defend their right to publish: "Stand in solidarity with your colleagues around the world in defence of common ideals. Show no fear."

Meanwhile Australian media is caught between the nether and the upper millstone: It wants to show solidarity with publishers and the global leaders who gathered in Paris on Sunday; it wants greater freedom of speech than local laws allow... yet those feelings are moderated by uncertainty about how to foster peaceful coexistence in a multicultural society.

What should be understood however, is that terror attacks are never acceptable: That whether or not insulting a religious leader - or anyone else for that matter - is legal or not, no person in a civilised society has the right to be judge, jury and executioner.

At a more local level however, publishers need to face up to the reality of possible violent reaction to what they publish. Just as the gunman who held Lindt café customers hostage in Sydney was thought to have had a TV studio in mind as his intended target, newspapers need to be serious about their own security and that of their staff.

Cyber-attacks present a different sort of challenge, as entertainment giant Sony has discovered, but at a basic level recent events are a reminder to review security at publishing offices, printing plants and elsewhere.

Over the years, I've visited remote print sites protected by doubled steel barriers, and less remote ones where you can waltz in and out at will. That "it will never happen" is now clearly an outdated concept.

Sections: Columns & opinion

Comments

or Register to post a comment




ADVERTISEMENTS


ADVERTISEMENTS