Arielle Munyard is an award winner with the Press Services International Young Writers Program. She attends Waverley Christian College, Melbourne Australia.
Our generation has become what comedian Bill Maher likes to call 'emotional hemophiliacs'. Any minor attack and we start bleeding. For some reason our answer to this problem has been to not go into a room full of sharp objects, no our answer has been to force everyone else wear bubble wrap. So that nothing anyone else says will trigger a moment of discomfort.
Australia, it is one of the greatest nations in the western world, no wars, no tyranny, and we have learned from the mistakes of others and our past.
But have we really learnt anything about open mindedness?
Australia subscribes to the Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19 , which gives its citizens the right to voice their opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment. The right to freedom of speech.
Our law sits on a very important balance between protecting and restricting freedom of speech, but currently this scale appears to have shifted out of proportion.
First, let’s be very clear. No one should ever fear for their safety. Obviously, this is a reasonable ground for restriction of speech. These are known as 'True Threats.' under the Australian government, Attorney-General's Department. True threats are prosecuted by a court and guidelines that define this exception of restriction is very clear, covering issues such as defame, fraud and work discrimination.
The concept of being ‘threatened’ which is a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injure or to damage anyone has blended unrecognisably with the term ‘offensive’ which is the feeling of hurt, typically from an insult. Australia needs to be incredibly careful in defining the terms of offense and threaten in this world of polarisation.
One controversy emanating from this imbalance is the case of Israel Folau who is set to lose his job as a professional rugby player for posting an offensive and unpopular opinion. A scroll through a few months of his Instagram feed reveals that about 50% of the posts on his page is exactly the same content. He has been posting these opinions for years. So why is it now that we punish him?
I am not at all defending or advocating the content in which he has presented, in fact I mostly disagree with his choices, but I will defend his right to speak.
Do we as a nation believe this specific phrase should punishable by termination of employment?
Possibly if he breached the Players Code which he signed. However this code only covers immediate interaction with people on the field and business conferences. There is an addendum prohibiting offensive social media use which Rugby Australia chief executive Raelene Castle intended to present to Folau in London last November, in which he did not sign on the suggestion of his agent Isaac Moses,. This is why his case has carried out for months after the post on the 10th of April 2019
Because it is not a case of breach in contract.
The point of contention has come from the fact that Qantas is Rugby Australia's biggest sponsor and the CEO of Qantas, Alan Joyce, is openly gay. In this circumstance, the LQBTQ community and supporters have been naturally outraged.
Should he have thought before he spoke? Absolutely. Especially considering his status and the complexity of the topics he is posting about. However, he is still legally within his rights to speak freely in this way.
This case was born out of offense and it is very likely that after months of court hearings that Folau will no longer be a part of Rugby Australia.
But this case does highlight the idea that people are willing to crucify, in Australia, based on offense.
Long-time gay activists Grace-Cohen responded to the story by saying that diversity also includes "opinions." Personally, she thinks Folou a "Neanderthal" - stating that if she can say that and "keep [her] job. Maybe so should he."
Some of these movements have advocated for the prevention and even punishment of those who hold unpopular opinions. Unpopular opinions? Let me rephrase that; you can be punished for having an opinion that does not conform to majority. And don’t get me wrong. Freedom for someone to voice any opinion can hurt. It does hurt.
But, isn't that the point?
No matter what the opinion is about. Religion, gender, politics, sports, etc... There is emotional attachment. These types of conversations really hurts. They're personal. No one wants to admit this, but our opinions form a significant part of our identity. So when someone speaks against that in anyway. Yes. It can be really offensive.
Take for example the Civil Rights Movement led by Martin Luther King Jr in America 1960s. What people don’t realise is that his movement was extremely unpopular. It was polled at the time that more than 66% of America disapproved of King specifically as a person. He was not just shot out of nowhere. Only after his death did people begin to recognise him as a hero he is today.
Offensive, unhelpful, inappropriate, disruptive. Have we forgotten that these all fall under the category of freedom of speech?
It is so important to allow for freedom of speech. The benefits vastly outweigh the negatives as it allows for the accountability of governments and excessively affluent businesses. Allowing for diversity in opinion, religious freedom, gender freedom, racial freedom and the opportunity to have difficult conversations, forcing our society to be constantly open minded.
It’s as if we no longer want the opportunity to be open minded. We have decided as a society that the best way to make easily offended individuals secure is to protect them from things they do not want to encounter. Which seems fair to an extent and I agree there is a time and place for protection, but not everyone needs this.
Because first of all its very hard to make life safe. Life is dangerously unsafe, so this strategy will not work. Second, the best way to make a resilient generation is by voluntarily exposing them to things that make them afraid and make them uncomfortable. Isn’t that what we should be prompting in our society? Resilience.
It is our duty as a society to maintain this balance of Freedom and restriction of speech.
Arielle Munyard is an award winner with the Press Services International Young Writers Program. She attends Waverley Christian College, Melbourne Australia.
Jeremy Dover is a former sports scientist and Pastor
Jeremy Dover's previous articles may be viewed at https://www.pressserviceinternational.org/jeremy-dover1.html
And https://www.pressserviceinternational.org/jeremy-dover.html
Jeremy Dover is a former sports scientist and Pastor
Jeremy Dover's previous articles may be viewed at https://www.pressserviceinternational.org/jeremy-dover1.html
And https://www.pressserviceinternational.org/jeremy-dover.html
