University of Queensland Lecturer against any public discussion on homosexual marriage - just elites only
Second, the argument by Rodney Croome AME leader, that a public debate will result in homosexuals suicides also doesn't stack up. This is because suicides in homosexual friendly countries, where gay marriage has been approved, are still showing high suicide rates among single homosexuals and married homosexuals.
Third, she disagrees with the suspension of homosexual vilification (Victoria and Tasmania) laws during the debate. But we have seen gay advocates seeking to imprison a Catholic priest for simply distributing a document to his parish and church schools outlining Biblical marriage.
The only people displaying hate and threats at the moment are homosexual advocates and politicians. Bill Shorten calls "anybody who is against homosexual marriage is a hater and should crawl back under a rock." Someone stands up for traditional marriage on the ABC and they get howled down.
Ordinary Australians are to be permitted to talk about traditional marriage, its history, love and not lust and its value to the community without threat of being called a hater by homosexuals who only 20 years - the act of homosexuality was a crime. Why is it no longer a crime? Because people have ditched God, followed their own lust, and at the same time are seeking to confuse children as young as kindy. This needs more than a debate,
Below is the faulty argument
In recent days some of the proponents of a plebiscite on marriage equality have argued it is important because it will allow people to air their views. The government has suggested that it would be democracy at work. Attorney-General George Brandis has said Australians can handle “hurtful arguments” because “we’re a democracy” that is “accustomed … to robust public discussion”.
But opponents are worried about the likely tone of any plebiscite on same-sex marriage. Labor claims the campaign is likely to unleash vitriol and vilification against the LBGTIQ community. Advocates of marriage equality have argued the same point. Sharyn Faulkner, from Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, worries it will be a “platform for hate”.
Who is right? What are the free speech issues at stake in the plebiscite?
At its core, the principle of free speech suggests it is a public good because it enables people to engage in the deliberation that is essential to them forming their own views of a good life, holding those views in an informed way, and engaging in the self-governance that legitimates democracy.
Our politicians and our parliaments are held accountable through the speech (theirs and ours) that enables us to discuss ideas openly.
But this principle contains an implication within it that is not always recognised. This is the implication that in order for free speech to do all of those good things that it is meant to do, as many people as possible need to be able to participate in it.
This means it is reasonable to ask people to exercise the responsibility that is intrinsically connected with a free speech right. This is the responsibility to speak well, by which I mean not harming by excluding, marginalising or discriminating against others in ways that mean they are not able to participate in the debate fully and openly.
Like any right, the free speech right carries with it commensurate responsibilities – primarily, the responsibility not to harm others. But free speech libertarians don’t recognise this. They assume, superficially, that free speech means anyone has the right to say anything, any way, any time, to any one.
That isn’t free speech – it’s a free-for-all, in which the loudest, the most bullying, or those with the most money get to speak and the rest just have to listen while being excluded from having a voice.
For example, the Australian Christian Lobby has suggested that sexuality-based anti-discrimination and anti-vilification laws ought to be suspended for the duration of the plebiscite campaign, so that people can speak “freely”. This means they are aware their words are likely to harm, marginalise, exclude and discriminate against LBGTIQ people.
Speech that harms does not equate with democratic debate. But we have heard no commitment from the government or from supporters of the marriage equality plebiscite to lead public debate in ways that discourage, or reduce the risk of, harmful speech.
The best way to have a public debate in a way that discourages, or reduces the risk of, harmful speech is to have it in the parliamentary chamber, where elected representatives get to practice the democracy they claim to support, and they have the opportunity to lead by example.
Free speech means there is no topic that ought to be considered off-limits in public debate. But a robust free speech principle also means we have a responsibility to discuss any and all topics in ways that do not harm others.
In recent days some of the proponents of a plebiscite on marriage equality have argued it is important because it will allow people to air their views. The government has suggested that it would be democracy at work. Attorney-General George Brandis has said Australians can handle “hurtful arguments” because “we’re a democracy” that is “accustomed … to robust public discussion”.
But opponents are worried about the likely tone of any plebiscite on same-sex marriage. Labor claims the campaign is likely to unleash vitriol and vilification against the LBGTIQ community. Advocates of marriage equality have argued the same point. Sharyn Faulkner, from Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, worries it will be a “platform for hate”.
Who is right? What are the free speech issues at stake in the plebiscite?
At its core, the principle of free speech suggests it is a public good because it enables people to engage in the deliberation that is essential to them forming their own views of a good life, holding those views in an informed way, and engaging in the self-governance that legitimates democracy.
Our politicians and our parliaments are held accountable through the speech (theirs and ours) that enables us to discuss ideas openly.
But this principle contains an implication within it that is not always recognised. This is the implication that in order for free speech to do all of those good things that it is meant to do, as many people as possible need to be able to participate in it.
This means it is reasonable to ask people to exercise the responsibility that is intrinsically connected with a free speech right. This is the responsibility to speak well, by which I mean not harming by excluding, marginalising or discriminating against others in ways that mean they are not able to participate in the debate fully and openly.
Like any right, the free speech right carries with it commensurate responsibilities – primarily, the responsibility not to harm others. But free speech libertarians don’t recognise this. They assume, superficially, that free speech means anyone has the right to say anything, any way, any time, to any one.
That isn’t free speech – it’s a free-for-all, in which the loudest, the most bullying, or those with the most money get to speak and the rest just have to listen while being excluded from having a voice.
For example, the Australian Christian Lobby has suggested that sexuality-based anti-discrimination and anti-vilification laws ought to be suspended for the duration of the plebiscite campaign, so that people can speak “freely”. This means they are aware their words are likely to harm, marginalise, exclude and discriminate against LBGTIQ people.
Speech that harms does not equate with democratic debate. But we have heard no commitment from the government or from supporters of the marriage equality plebiscite to lead public debate in ways that discourage, or reduce the risk of, harmful speech.
The best way to have a public debate in a way that discourages, or reduces the risk of, harmful speech is to have it in the parliamentary chamber, where elected representatives get to practice the democracy they claim to support, and they have the opportunity to lead by example.
Free speech means there is no topic that ought to be considered off-limits in public debate. But a robust free speech principle also means we have a responsibility to discuss any and all topics in ways that do not harm others.
