Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Free speech is one of the great virtues that underpin our society. Failure to celebrate free speech, especially for one's political or ideological opponents, is to seriously undermine this foundational institution of our society. Universities as institutions of learning should not only defend but actively encourage free speech, allowing for robust discussion to enable logical assessments to be made by our fellow citizens.

Despite the self-evident benefits of free speech, we are witnessing a creeping, ugly totalitarianism that seeks to stifle if not completely stop the exercise of free speech in our society. You've guessed it: it's done in the name of tolerance, whilst at the same time the perpetrators engage in name-calling, calling opponents hateful or bigots—insert insult of choice—all in the cause of virtue-signalling their love, their inclusiveness and, of course, their tolerance.

Recently, Balliol College at the University of Oxford banned their Christian group from its open day, not because the group had done anything wrong but because of alleged misdeeds by Christianity in the past. The university administration did step in, but it was too late for that open day.

Similarly, my local university, shamefully, initially refused to provide facilities for the holding of a forum to present the no case in the current postal survey. To its credit, the university reversed its decision. I congratulate the university for doing so. Regrettably, this is not the end of the story. There is now an ugly rearguard action being run by a group, including senior lecturers, seeking signatures to a petition to condemn the university for its commitment to free speech. Make no mistake: when senior lecturers email students seeking support, the pressure to sign is immense. The absence of a signature may well be noted. Students and other underlings of a senior lecturer will hardly feel free not to sign.

Indeed, that's how I became aware of the letter. A person felt intimidated. The covering letter of the senior lecturer refers to her feeling 'disgusted and hurt'. The opening paragraph of the proposed letter to the university does not deal with the matters of principle, like the universal human right to free speech. No, the great intellectual argument was expressed as follows: 'We are writing to express our disappointment in relation to the university's decision to make the Burbury Lecture Theatre available to the Coalition for Marriage. It would be possible for each of us to respond by detailing the ways in which this action has profoundly affected us. We feel betrayed, let down, insulted, offended, frustrated, disillusioned and humiliated.' It's all about their subjective feelings: they feel betrayed, let down et cetera.

When you operate on actual principle, you ask: how would you feel if the boot were on the other foot? Do unto others as you would have done unto you. Did the intellectuals, before deciding on their campaign, ask those to whom they would deny a facility to hold their forum how they would feel? Could they feel profoundly affected? Could they feel betrayed and let down that an institution of learning and free thought denied them the right to meet? Could they feel insulted, offended, frustrated, disillusioned and, indeed, humiliated—to use their language—by being told they are not worthy to express their views? Could their self-esteem and mental health have been impacted? An honest answer to these questions exposes not only the hypocrisy of the perpetrators but an ugly intolerance that puts personal subjective feelings above the universally recognised human right of free speech.

Those that seek to shut down free speech because they don't like what is being said today would do well to remember that, if that becomes the standard, their freedom will be similarly shut down by others tomorrow. We all win and protect each other for our mutual individual and societal good and benefit if we allow freedom of speech to flourish. That is why everyone should support the university's decision, irrespective of their view on the survey. (Time expired)