Defending free speech

13 FEBRUARY 2017: I spoke in defence of free speech at a fundraiser on Friday night. You can see the video here or read the speech below.Thank you Kirralie and Debbie for the invitation to come and speak tonight. There are some parts of the world where my standing here, talking to you about a basic human right would not be allowed. In many countries, free speaking is punishable by imprisonment. In some countries, it is punishable by death. Australia is not – and never should be – part of that group. But there are citizens in this country who believe otherwise.And it is our role, as defenders of free speech, to stand up for our rights.My friend, Kirralie Smith, has been a critic of halal certification and has spoken openly about her concerns. And she has valid arguments. Her arguments do not concern products that are halal approved. The concern is with products that are halal certified, which means a fee has been paid to an Islamic certifier. Kirralie is concerned that Halal certification and the associated fee is a religious practice being imposed on people who have no choice in the matter. And Kirralie, like many of us, is opposed to funding someone else’s religious practice.She is opposed to the hypocrisy of calling someone a racist or bigot if they criticise the ideology of Islam. As she has pointed out:o Critics of the Catholic Church are never labelled racists or bigots.o Criticising Nazis doesn’t equate to hating all Germans.o Speaking out about communism is not seen as an attack on the Chinese or North Koreans.Many people express concerns about halal certification and those concerns were raised in the Senate Economics References Committee’s Report on Third Party Certification of Food. One of the major concerns was that money raised through halal certification could be funding terrorist organisations. The Senate inquiry tried to explore this question without a great deal of success – simply because no one could show where the money went. The Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, the body with regulatory responsibility for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing told the inquiry they had no information to indicate halal certification was linked to terrorism.But they also said they don’t follow the money. The Australian Crime Commission told the inquiry they had not found any DIRECT links between halal Certification and terrorism funding. And yet evidence of the indirect link was freely available on the internet, as well as an admission as to why an indirect link was used. Dr Rateb Jneid, the President of the Islamic Council of Western Australia, wrote in the council’s 2013 report (which was posted on their website but since deleted):“Halal subcommittee now is functional and income starts coming Alhamdulillah. Our next aim is to expand Halal certification for local and international business insha’Alla.”He goes on to say:“During the year ICWA has made ongoing donations to Syria because of the difficult civil conditions. The donations were through Al Imdaad charity, to ensure that no recriminations could be directed at ICWA.”Why would the council be so concerned about recriminations? Perhaps because organisations funded through Al Imdaad, such as Hamas, are listed terrorist organisations. Al Imdaad has supported ISIS and is directly linked to IRFAN (the International Relief Fund for the Afflicted and Needy).Although claiming to be a charitable organisation, IRFAN Canada transferred more than $14 million to terrorist organisations, including Hamas.More recently, in July this year, an Australian citizen was arrested in Singapore on terrorism-related charges. Zulfikar Mohamad Shariff lived in Australia for 14 years and collected the dole while supporting Islamic State on social media, trying to convince Muslims to reject the democratic, secular system that was feeding him in favour of an Islamic caliphate. Shariff started the International Halal Management company and also joined the hate-preaching group – Hizb ut Tahrir.The confusing, messy, shadowy industry that is halal certification, with its corruption, bribes, and complete lack of transparency and accountability, is the perfect cover for a radical to raise money and engage in terrorist-supporting activity.So Kirralie Smith exercised her right to free speech. She spoke out about concerns that she and many others had about halal certification. And guess what? The recommendations from the inquiry lined up with many of the concerns that Kirralie raised. The recommendations say there DOES need to be clear labelling and there DOES need to be greater guards against profiteering, despite being chaired by Senator Sam Dastyari, who was openly against his own inquiry.Unfortunately, as a result of criticisms she has made, a halal certifier is now taking Kirralie and the Q Society to court for defamation. While they have every right to do that under the current law, the reality is that the arguments surrounding halal certification are clearly in the public interest and need to be debated. Imagine the court cases that would clog our system if every business, every religion, every sporting team, and every politician took legal action every time they were criticised. No one would have time to express their opinion anymore because we would all be too busy lodging and defending court cases.The way to prevent such an insanity is to nip it in the bud before it takes root. This case against Kirralie and the Q Society needs to be recognised early to prevent vexatious litigation becoming a financial burden for those on the receiving end and to prevent it from eroding our faith in free speech. Our legal fraternity would do well to consider the implications for free speech when cases like this come before them and rule them out as vexatious complaints as early as possible to ensure the least damage is done. And the courts should also consider imposing financial penalties on those who lodge vexatious litigation as a deterrent to other who wish to abuse the legal system. The concept and integrity of free speech, particularly on matters that are political and religious, are a fundamental hallmark of Western society and have been since the Enlightenment.As Kirralie has previously pointed out – her comments are not a religious attack. They are concerns about an ideology, a tax, and potential funding of terrorist organisations. But why should religions be beyond the reach of criticism anyway? Personally, I don't like a lot of religions ... including some hard-core fundamentalist Christian sects. I think they're bonkers. But that's my personal view.As a politician it's not my job to give a running critique of religion so I don't and I won't. But that's not to say that no one should criticise religion.Religions are societal institutions and are fair game for criticism, whether it be intellectual or crass; from Professor Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion to the yobbo slamming the door on Jehovah Witnesses, complaining about "bloody bible bashers!" To take away the right to criticise religions is to strike a blow against free speech, democracy and the values that have underpinned the West since the Enlightment. It would also leave a lot of comedians without enough material to do a show.But as a politician, it is within my role to call out and criticise ideologies, particularly those that are incongruous with Australian law, or those that are against Australian culture or those who seek to supplant our free and democratic way of life with an oppressive, illiberal, theocratic dictatorship. And that's why I am virulently and unashamedly rock-solid in my opposition to the ideology of Islamism, or radical Islam, if you will. It's an ideology given birth by cleric Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhabi in the stifling heat of the Saudi desert. Seen as a return to fundamental roots of Islam, Salafism or Wahhabism advocates a literal interpretation of the Quran and the implementation of Sharia law. Its jihadist adherents fight what they believe to be a great battle.On their side is dar al-Islam (or the House of Islam: Those who have submitted to the will of Allah, as expressed in the Quran). On the other side is dar al-Harb (or the House of War, which has also been called the dar al-Kufr or the Realm of the Heathens). I guess that's us, folks!This ideology - Islamism - is the motivation that drove al-Qaeda and today drives ISIS - the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or, more correctly, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. It's an ideology that seeks to rip down our free, democratic society and all of the rights, protections and benefits that the Marxist protesters outside hold so dear.Those poor lefties! They do suffer from severe cognitive dissonance on this issue. While they want to protest against the State and societal institutions, Islamism and Sharia law would end that right to protest. The protesters outside would promote feminism and they want to destroy the joint. They would want to tear down the patriarchy and all sorts of imagined oppression - marriage for instance – or GST on sanitary pads. But the Islamism and Sharia Law they are supporting subjugates women as the property of men. It forces them to cover themselves from head to toe in black garb lest the sight of female flesh tempts a man. It mandates female genital mutilation upon them at a young age and, also at a young age (sometimes pre-teen or early teen), forces them into marriage with much older men. It bans them from voting. It bans them from driving. And, should they ever commit adultery, has them buried up to their head, which is then stoned with appropriately-sized rocks that inflict enough pain and trauma until an eventual release with death.While the protestors outside would champion gay rights, probably support same sex marriage, maybe even support gender deconstruction being foisted upon schoolchildren through programs such as Safe Schools, Islamism and Sharia Law decrees that the punishment for homosexuality is to be thrown off a multi-story building to plummet to a brutal death or to be hanged. I believe in free speech so I respect the right of those protesters outside to express their opinion. But if they had any common sense (or belief in their own values) they'd be in here with us, protesting against the vile and oppressive ideology of Islamism. But these misguided folk are but part of a greater push to shut down any debate around Islam or Islamism.In fact, it is more than just a push. It is now law. In August last year, the ACT made changes to the Discrimination Act, making it illegal to vilify someone because of religion. Vilification can include social media posts, actions in a workplace and wearing clothes, signs or flags that would incite hatred, contempt, ridicule or revulsion. So wearing the Australian flag, which some people can find revolting, can leave you with a criminal conviction with a fine of up to $7500. The ACT police must have had a busy time on Australia Day, rounding up all the criminals at backyard barbecues, playgrounds, and parks around Canberra. In trying to defend the new law, the ACT’s Attorney-General Simon Corbell said the change wasn’t designed to limit freedom of speech. He said it was designed to "ensure the political discourse does not descend into hatred”. Whatever the intention was, the practical effect is that freedom of speech is now limited.In Tasmania, the Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 prohibits anyone from inciting “hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of”, a person or group on the grounds of “religious belief or affiliation or religious activity of the person or any member of the group”.Queensland's law is similar and the Islamic Council of Queensland brought the first action under the law for victimisation on account of religion. The case, against a federal election candidate, was dismissed but not without erosion of the integrity of free speech.Victoria has its own Racial and Religious Tolerance Act (2001) which makes religious vilification as well as racial vilification unlawful.It does include a get-out-of-jail clause protecting speech in the public interest and publishing fair and accurate reports. But there was no such protection for pastors Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot, who made “controversial” remarks about Islam at a seminar and were consequently found to have violated the Act by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Victoria overturned the decision and said the tribunal had no business attempting “to assess the theological propriety of what was asserted at the seminar”. But the damage to freedom of speech was done and the real goal achieved – that real goal being to make people too scared to voice their opinion. People are too fearful to comment because they know common sense can’t be relied upon and neither can they rely on the get-out-of-jail clauses in these laws.Common sense tells us that preventing criticism of Islamism would be to abandon freedom of speech. But there are organisations in this country advocating just that. According to the imam and founder of Muslim Village website, Ahmed Kilani, the New South Wales government’s refusal to ban criticism of Islam is "a huge slap in the face to Australian Muslims in a time of rising Islamophobia". According to counter-terrorism adviser to the government, Clarke Jones, criticising Islam is "one of the major driving issues leading to potential acts of violent extremism". He said: "We have to do something about people that are ostracising Muslims. It is fuelling the fire." What an argument!Being critical of a religion for being violent and extreme, leads to people of that religion being violent and extreme! Those appeasers are shooting themselves in the foot with that argument. There are many other advocates of shutting down free speech, such as Muslim Legal Network president Zaahir Edries and Federation of Islamic Councils president Keysar Trad (who also advocates for the introduction of Sharia law in Australia). And they are all supported by the Grand Mufti of Australia, Ibrahim Abu Mohammed, who made a submission to the parliamentary freedom of speech inquiry, saying that failing to expand the Racial Discrimination Act to include religion would “create a disharmonious environment for minority groups in Australia and have a negative impact on multiculturalism”.Now section 18C is bad enough without adding to it. The fundamental flaw with Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act is in the definition of the words “insult” and “offend”. How can any court be expected to determine what someone may find offensive?Or insulting? Offense is not given. It is taken. And how easily it is taken is a highly subjective, individual measure. There are plenty of people in Australia, such as those protesters outside, who actively go out of their way looking for a reason to be offended. How hard do you think it will be to offend them. I have offended them by walking through the door. Do we ban that too?And now we have the Grand Mufti wanting to make it even easier for them to be offended and to lodge claims. I have a message for the Grand Mufti and any of his flock who believe we should have Sharia-style anti-blasphemy laws in this country. He (and they) can catch the first plane out of here and go to another country – a less offensive country for them – somewhere like Saudi Arabia, Syria or Iraq.Imagine if the Grand Mufti and his true believers got their way? What if speaking against Islam or Islamism got you locked up or having to do community service. Imagine if someone said that Islam had a very marked subordination of woman to man and that it is opposed to our modern ideas about society. Well, someone did and that was Pope Benedict XVI. If the Grand Mufti had his way, Pope Benedict would be hauled before the Human Rights Commission. Now, imagine that? Pope Benedict on his knees and having to confess his sins to Gillian Triggs?Imagine if someone said Hitler was like Muhammad and he was on his way to found a new Islam. Someone did. Carl Jung. The psychoanalyst, who, under a beefed-up 18C, would be diagnosed with the psychological condition of Islamophobia and fined accordingly.Imagine if someone said Muhammad was a disseminator “of scandal and of schism” and so was now in hell where his punishment was to be split or “rent from the chin to where one breaketh wind.” Someone did. That was the poet Dante Alighieri, who in modern Australia would find that after the 9 circles of hell, the tenth would be a day sitting in the dock at an anti-discrimination tribunal hearing.Imagine if someone said that Islam was “a vile culture” in which its extremists think “it’s okay to strap bombs onto your children and send them to paradise and whatever else and to behead people.” Someone did. The lead singer of the rock band Kiss, Mr Gene Simmons. No more rocking every night and partying every day for him because he would definitely be locked up by the thought police for that one.What if someone said that within Islam was a “permanent menace” and that it “creates a kind of ecstasy of the very emptiness of its own land, and even, one may say, out of the emptiness of its own theology.” Someone did. The great writer GK Chesterton who no doubt would exclaim “What’s wrong with the world?!” as we he was hauled off to see Racial Discrimination Commissioner Tim Soutphommasane.He would join Mark Twain in the paddy wagon because Twain said when he examines the Koran, he knows “that beyond any question every Mohammedan is insane; not in all things, but in religious matters.”What if someone called the Quran “this unintelligible book, each page of which makes common sense shudder” or claimed that Mohammed was a “deceitful character” who cut the throats of fathers and kidnapped daughters; “that he gives to the defeated the choice of his religion or death.” The someone that said that was Voltaire. Imagine! The man who championed separation of church and state being tried for what amounts to blasphemy.What if someone said that “the influence of (Islam) paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.” Perhaps if Gillian Triggs was around in the early 20th century she would have locked up Winston Churchill for saying that. Great Britain would be under Nazi rule but at least that Islamophobe Churchill would be behind bars!Or what about this one? “… thirteen hundred years of imperialistic expansion has made the Muslims fighters as a body. They are therefore aggressive. Bullying is the natural excrescence of an aggressive spirit.” If we had 18C cover religion we could have locked up Mahatma Ghandi for these non-violent thoughts.So let’s recap:Under the guise of anti-discrimination, in this country, it is entirely possible, especially if 18C was expanded to include religion as the Grand Mufti wants, that we could have Pope Benedict XVI, Jung, Dante, Gene Simmons, GK Chesteron, Voltaire, Mark Twain, Churchill and Ghandi all in the dock… and for what? For exercising their right to free speech in order to criticise a religion that they disagree with.Think on that for a moment. Some of the world’s greatest minds, silenced, because they criticised Islam.More recently, criticism of Islam came through the French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo. Charlie Hebdo’s publication sparked one of the worst acts of terrorism the world has seen. That’s another way freedom of speech is being silenced… through threats of violence and terror.And now there's criticism of Islam from Kirralee Smith and her supporters in the Q Society. I'm sure under any federal anti-blasphemy laws, masquerading as anti-discrimination laws, Kirralie and Q Society leadership would be locked up and the key would be thrown away. But even as it is, they are still subject to legal penalty; being dragged through the courts for defamation is costly and it must take its toll mentally, emotionally and physically. But just as they say “Je Suis Charlie”, tonight we declare “Je Suis Kirralie” and “Je Suis Q”. For we are all in this fight for free speech against those that seek to silence us.Regardless of the outcome of the court case they face, though, there is one thing that is certain: in the face of the Islamist ideology that seeks to destroy our society, our democracy, our freedoms and our way of life and supplant that with subjugation and oppression: we will we never, ever be silent!Thank you Kirralee, thank you Debbie, and thank you ladies and gentlemen.