Skip to main content

Freedom of Speech is Un-Australian...literally



The NSW Government passed a bill which seeks to enable 'safe access zones' for women visiting abortion clinics. The bill will mean that pro life protesters cannot harass women entering these clinics (at least within a 150m radius).

This is a small victory for women who choose to access these services. What is surprising about the bill being passed was the lack of support from the NSW Minister for Women - Tanya Davies. Davies cited her reason behind the her decision was to give  protesters the opportunity to 'give information' to these women.

That reasoning is unsatisfactory, for instance, if Davies is concerned about the 'information' that women need to have regarding abortions then she is misinformed about the actual procedure of abortion in NSW.

The current procedure for women who choose to abort consists of counselling prior to making that final decision. At that counselling session they would be adequately informed of all their options. Therefore the need for 'information' at the clinics is redundant. It also undermines women who have made their choice regarding their own bodies and regards the opinions of complete strangers too highly.

It is naive to think that protestors who spend their spare time hanging around abortion clinics have benevolent intentions to simply give 'information'. A more accurate description of their behaviour would be that they regularly harass and intimidate women choosing to visit these clinics. The protest signs usually have harrowing pictures of foetuses and distressing signs. These women would be subjected to verbal abuse regarding their decision and the protesters unaware of the women's individual circumstances or even if they were aware, it is not their decision to make.

Abortion is, and always has been a feminist issue. Men do not get abortions. It is about women's right to choose what to do with their own bodies which is why it is quite disappointing when the NSW Minister for Women doesn't support it. But it is naive to think that being a woman automatically qualifies as being a feminist. She is not alone. Pru Howard - the NSW Family and Community Services Minister also didn't support the Bill citing her reason as the right to 'free speech.'

Free speech has an American ring to it, it sounds like a 'right' and for Americans it is. If you believe that Australia has free speech, you are sadly mistaken. In Australia, we do not have free speech. We don't even have a Bill of Rights. We have a diluted implied freedom of communication when it comes to politics. That's as close as we get to 'freedom of speech'. So the next time an abuser protests 'freedom of speech' as an excuse, you can gently remind them that they do not have freedom of speech. At least legally speaking. Sorry.

Abortion usually falls into the grey area of being a political issue. It is a highly contested issue, but to label it 'political' only suits those who wish to protest and harass women undergoing these procedures. The jurisdiction of a woman's uterus belongs to that woman only. A uterus alone is not political. So freedom of speech (also known as harassment) does not apply.

Free speech is also used to give a platform to anti vaccination advocates. Kent Heckenlively, Polly Tommey and Suzanne Humphries were all denied access to Australia due to their views on vaccinations. One could argue that this is an attack on free speech. That all people should be 'adequately informed' on their choice to vaccinate their children (or not).

The notion of free speech is often used in contexts where the person who wants to speak has abusive or potentially harmful views. 'Free speech' is used as a mask for hate speech, ignorant ideologies or the right to insult and abuse someone in person or over the internet. The free speech argument was used as a reason for removing s 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

Freedom of speech is only relevant when it comes to freedom of political communication, therefore, we are not as similar to our American cousins as we thought.















Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We won't achieve Gender Equality until Ardern's situation is viewed as normal.

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern discovered she was pregnant only six days away from being announced as Prime Minister on 19 October 2017. At first she and partner Clarke Gayford chose to keep it quiet but since announcing her pregnancy the 37 year old has received a mixed response with some feeling 'betrayed' by the announcement, accusing her of being 'selfish' for putting her needs before her country and that she chose to have her baby at the wrong time and should have 'waited' until she wasn't prime minister. Others have suggested that due to the pregnancy she will not be 'fit for purpose' and cannot possibly handle being prime minister as well as being pregnant. Mainly because you know....'baby brain?' There has also been concern around the amount of time she will take for maternity leave. Ardern has stated that she is going to take six weeks off and that her partner Gayford will look after the baby. Ardern's situat...

It's not accurate to say that someone 'lost' their battle with cancer

Whenever I see a well known person or celebrity who died of cancer the common text surrounding the death will usually include sentences such as ‘they lost their battle with cancer.’ I’ve had family members pass away from this disease but I know that I am not alone. Around 1 in 3 people will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives. My issue with the phrase is that cancer is not a battle one can control. By categorising a cancer death with ‘losing the battle’ implies that there is an element of control by the person suffering from the disease. The success rate will depend on the stage of cancer, how far it has spread and how aggressive the cancer is. Even after a cancer battle is ‘won’ (meaning remission) it is still an on going burden. Cancer treatment today involves chemotherapy but the important thing to remember is that chemotherapy is not a cure. It is a treatment. That individual will still need to monitor their cancer for years to come. ...