Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

This week, the Canberra Declaration made a submission to the inquiry into the Albanese Government’s dystopian ‘Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation’ Bill. Read a powerful excerpt of it below.

We could not be more strongly opposed to the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023. The enhanced powers the proposed bill would grant the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) would effectively silence an organisation like ours, along with countless other Australian individuals and organisations whose views on social issues are subject to being falsely characterised as ‘misinformation’ and/or ‘disinformation’ by Commonwealth agencies, politicians, commentators, community leaders and media figures.

The Canberra Declaration exists to champion the Judeo-Christian beliefs and values that undergird Western civilisation, and Australian society in particular. One of the main channels through which we champion our values, spread our message, build our supporter base and fund our important work is social media. Our news and commentary site the Daily Declaration has a reach of half a million views each year. Much of this traffic comes via our footprint on social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter.

Today, to even claim that the freedoms, advantages, opportunities, values and liberties we enjoy in our nation are products of the Christian worldview is to invite accusations of ‘misinformation’. Additionally, our stance on critical social issues like religious freedom, marriage and family, and the sanctity of human life likewise make us liable to the same unfair accusations.

For our sake and for the sake of all Australians, we put on record our wholehearted rejection of the proposed bill.

Defining Misinformation

By proposing a bill like the one in question, the Albanese Government is entering extremely murky waters. Terms like ‘misinformation’, ‘disinformation’, ‘fake news’ and ‘hate speech’ are frequently used by critics, regulators, bureaucrats and political actors to smear ideas they don’t like and to restrict people’s freedom to express those ideas. Very often, the use of such terms betrays more about the people wielding them than the speech they wish to prohibit.

A concept like ‘misinformation’ is unavoidably subjective. What one person regards as ‘misinformation’, another may deem to be a perfectly moral viewpoint, a fact of nature, or a self-evident proposition. On countless subjects, even the line between what is fact and what is opinion is hotly debated.

Moreover, what society regards as ‘misinformation’ at one point in time can, within just the space of a few years, be embraced as as true — or vice versa.

Thus we are faced with a most consequential question — namely, who gets to decide what is true versus what is ‘misinformation’? The political party that forms government? The majority of citizens? CEOs of media conglomerates? Intergovernmental bodies like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the World Health Organisation or the World Economic Forum?

Moreover, who informs Australians when certain ideas — new or old — cross the subjective threshold from true to mere matter of opinion to ‘misinformation’?

Without answers to these questions, the Albanese Government is demanding that Australians sign a blank cheque — to surrender their freedom of speech online to unknown, unseen and undefined forces.

Australia’s Commitment to Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right of every Australian. In defining what constitutes the values of Australia, the Department of Home Affairs features “respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual” and “freedom of religion (including the freedom not to follow a particular religion), freedom of speech, and freedom of association” at the very top of its list.

Australia is a founding member of the United Nations and an original signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Article 18 of that declaration reads:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19 takes this right even further:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Australia’s commitment to these inalienable, universally-agreed-upon human rights has not been revoked. On its website, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade states that:

Australia’s commitment to human rights is enduring: we were an original signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. We have been a leading proponent of its consistent and comprehensive implementation.

In short, the passage of the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023 would put the Commonwealth of Australia in breach of its international human rights obligations and at odds with its own nation’s character and values. This is a threshold Australia must not pass.

Freedom is the Birthright of Every Australian

Freedom of speech is widely acknowledged as the starting point for all other political liberties.

The Founding Fathers of the United States laboured long over the question of liberty. According to Benjamin Franklin, “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation, must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.” The nation’s first President George Washington was sterner still, writing, “If the freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

There is simply no way to silence the speech of those who hold unpalatable views without doing irreparable, long-term harm to the culture and nation at large.

What the drafters of this bill fail to recognise is that human rights are non-negotiable. They do not belong to any government, nor are they granted by government. To quote Benjamin Franklin once more, “Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature.”

Freedom of speech is the birthright of every Australian. It is the role of the Commonwealth of Australia to recognise that fact and to protect the freedoms that every Australian already possesses.

The impulse to decide which speech constitutes ‘misinformation’ and must be censored is, at heart, totalitarian. By giving government agencies increased power over the words that Australian citizens are allowed to utter, the Albanese Government tempts tyranny. In the wise words of Thomas Jefferson, “a government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have.”

Last century, many nations responded to times of uncertainty by giving their governments unprecedented power, including and especially over the speech of their citizens. In many cases, those experiments ended in horror and bloodshed. Communist and Fascist leaders alike won the trust of the masses with grand promises that could only be fulfilled by making every aspect of life the concern of government. But as C.S. Lewis sagely warned:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive… those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Freedom of Speech Means Freedom to Dissent

British novelist and critic George Orwell warned, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” A freedom that only allows sanctioned, inoffensive speech but silences provocative ideas or ideas that challenge the consensus viewpoint is not a freedom worth having. In fact, it is not freedom at all.

Orwell also warned that our failure to appreciate this fact won’t just hurt others—it will come back to bite us. “If you encourage totalitarian methods, the time will come when they will be used against you instead of for you.” American philosopher Thomas Paine issued a smilier caution: “He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”

It is the obligation of the Australian government to let its citizens speak freely and express ideas that run counter to the majority viewpoint on any given subject. Disagreement and dissent is not violence. Hurting people’s feelings is not violence. It is not the role of the Commonwealth to prevent the people of Australia from saying silly things, or even things that might — in they eyes of government agencies — cause ‘harm’.

People must be free to speak against ideas and ideologies they disagree with. All ideas — including those embraced by the majority of people — must be open to debate, criticism and even ridicule. Even if dissenters are wrongheaded, they must be allowed to believe and say things that are patently untrue and absurd. If not, the entire premise of human rights is undermined and its edifice comes tumbling down.

To be clear, in Australia, penalties are already imposed on those who incite violence against individuals or groups in the community. Inciting violence has always been a criminal offence under the common law and it is also an offence under various state statutes.

What the bill in question proposes is that those with power get to decide which views and opinions it deems ‘misinformation’, and can therefore suppress.

The Government Must Be Held Accountable

The single most concerning aspect of the bill’s exposure draft is that “content that is authorised by the Commonwealth or a State” along with “professional news content” would be granted immunity from the proposed ACMA powers. Such a proposal invites comparisons to George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four and to political regimes that allow only government operatives and State-sanctioned news outlets to guide the public discourse.

Just a few years ago, anyone suggesting the Australian government would do such a thing would have been dismissed as a conspiracy theorist. Now we are just months away from that bone-chilling scenario potentially passing into law.

On behalf of all freedom-loving Australians, we condemn this draft bill and plead in the strongest possible terms that the citizens of Australia be allowed to continue holding their government to account.

Image via Unsplash.