Malcolm Turnbull faces a renewed push to overhaul section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. With the recent election of Trump, issues that are seen to be directly relevant to 18C – namely political correctness – are being thrust back into the limelight.
A renewal of the bitter battle over 18C (which seemingly fizzled out last year) will no doubt come as wearisome news to many. Would-be 18C reformers describe their movement as a crusade in support of freedom of speech against “out of control political correctness”, whereas opponents like Bill Shorten describe it as a “vendetta driven by prejudice.” The debate is essentially a yelling contest with neither side willing to accommodate the view of the other.
The unwillingness for rational debate about the controversial Racial Discrimination Act stems from the problematic way this contest has always been presented. The battle over political correctness has been described as the result of a five decade struggle between the left and right, in which the consensus seems to be that the right has won the economic and political war, whilst the left won the culture war.
This culture war is now seen as an oversimplified battle between political correctness and free speech, with arbitrary comments and virtue signalling existing where there should be thoughtful, inclusive conversation about structures in language and society that are discriminatory to certain groups of people. The result is a hardening of stances by both sides that overlooks genuine belief and deep consideration in favour of making a principled stance based on politics and pack mentality.
Conservative commentator Janet Albrechtsen once argued that many people “feel intimidated about expressing their opinions because they fear censure from the thought police”, who infect so much of “what we do, what we read, how we live and how we think.” Such an assessment comes from a place of bitter disdain rather than an interest in understanding the reality political correctness has come from. The vast majority of conservatives concede that discrimination does exist. But the ferocious and hostile way many liberals have critiqued and demanded solutions for it has achieved little more than contempt and a lack of understanding about why familiar and seemingly harmless world views are being attacked. Both sides are at fault for this debacle.
Photo credit: Dimitris Vetsikas.
Political correctness has and always will be about freedom of speech. It represents the right to dissent, to say ‘hey I don’t like it when you say that, it’s degrading to me and/or an entire grouping of people’. The receiver has every right to respond, and whilst it can be uncomfortable to be challenged, it’s not suppression.
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean there are no consequences for being a jerk. It’s not censorship if a person who blurted out offensive comments (which were light hearted in their view) now feels constrained about doing so out of fear others will think less of them. It’s not censorship for readers to disagree and criticise a columnist, nor is it censorship to petition or rally against lectures or other public expressions of objectionable views. Freedom of speech means your audience has the right to object and criticise you, regardless of the damage to your self-regard.
However, this standard has to be to applied to everyone. The minority of liberal activists who seek to make dubious state alliances in order to censor dissenting voices need to re-examine their long term goals. A lot of well meaning people simply find politically correct demands, many of which deal with complex historical and identity issues relevant to specific people, to be hard to come to terms with. Being gagged or viciously bombarded by gangs of people over certain presumptions and unintentionally harmful comments doesn’t encourage much empathy or reflective thought.
Proponents of 18C reform may have a valid point about these laws. Perhaps the best way to combat discrimination isn’t through vague, blanket laws that ban it without much consideration for its actual ability to deal with the issue. I would like to see a debate that focuses on that rather than the politics that underpin it.
More than anything, an approach is needed that involves actually trying to listen to and understand the various concerns being raised. We can’t afford to let an issue about the wellbeing of people continue to degrade into hollow political overtures.
Daniel Huigsloot is a Communications and Public Relations student at Deakin University and a regular contributor to Centrethought. Find out more about him here, and follow him on Twitter @HuigslootDaniel.