I have a right to my opinion...

I hate that expression!

Nothing marks a conversational dead end faster than one party boldly stating that they have a right to their own opinion. Translated for the crowd this usually means: 'I disagree with you and I don't want to talk about it anymore!'

This particular invocation of 'rights' blew up on Australian TVs recently when the prominent media presenter David Koch made comments about breast-feeding. Kochie was commenting on a news story detailing how a Queensland woman was asked to cover up while breast-feeding at a public pool. His comments included the advice that breast-feeding women should be "discrete" and "classy" while lactating in public. These comments promoted a response from breast-feeding mothers that ranged from measured to vitriolic and culminated in a rally outside Kochie's breakfast program. In a final sally against his critics Kochie invoked his implied 'rights' (SMH - Kochie editorial),attempting to end the discussion.

What is this 'right' though? The sentence itself is worth a quick look because quite frankly it is ludicrous and redundant. Having opinions is intrinsic to our thoughtful, individual, messed up humanity. Within the privacy of our own thoughts we cannot help but form opinions, so asserting a right is nonsensical unless you fear brainwashing. When someone feels the need to assert this as a 'right' they are really indicating that they don't intend to engage you any further, lest their opinion shifts; becomes a little less theirs, maybe more your own.

I think  this whole notion of being free to express one's opinion gets a little tangled up in the much vaunted First Amendment to the American Constitution. That's the one guaranteeing, to paraphrase, 'free speech'. Seems like everyone knows of this and feels that it applies to them too; shout your opinion loud and proud people. While I agree with the principle of freedom of expression it's worth noting that it doesn't quite work that way in Australia. We have no equivalent to America's first amendment enshrined in Australian law. The Department of Immigration and Citizenship describes 'Freedom of Speech' as one of Australia's five fundamental freedoms (Aus Dept Immigration), but it's not quite that clear cut. What we have is a common law protection of freedom of political expression, which I gather means you are free to critique the government of the day without persecution. However our general right to free expression is tempered by qualifications against the incitement of hatred, violence or discrimination. 

I don't think Kochie's comments come anywhere near inciting hatred, violence or discrimination but nor does this mean he just gets to claim he has a right to comment unfettered. As a public commentator and media personality Kochie must acknowledge his role in creating an filtering public opinion. His website notes a poll describing him as one of the top fifty most respected people in Australia. People listen to him and through them Kochie can direct the public narrative and understanding of an issue. Breast feeding mothers everywhere rightly feared that Kochie's comments could result in their being shamed and ridiculed for the very natural act of feeding their child.

In this light, the backlash against his breast-feeding comments does not amount to an attempt to censor Kochie's implied right to express himself, rather it is the exercise of that same right being used to dissent against his opinions. When Kochie derides his critics as "the noisy social media brigade" he demeans private individuals attempting to meet him on common ground. He fails to afford them the platform he already enjoys.

Implicit in a right of free expression (qualified or otherwise) is another's right to oppose your opinion. We generally just call this a public debate and encourage it as a healthy part of our society. By bluntly declaring "I have an opinion... always have, always will", Kochie came dangerously close to an attempt to suppress this. Fortunately he seems like a decent bloke and for those who read to the end of his response, he attempts redemption by acknowledging the role of public debate. In what some commentators claimed as backtracking, Kochie described the protest against his comments as "terrific" and encouraged open discussion with the protest leader Amy Ahearn.

Crisis averted, and the whole event threatens to disappear in the relentless turning of the news cycle. Perhaps some good may come of engaging people in thinking about the roles and rights of new mothers and the trials they face in daily life. But I would warm however against allowing the dreadful false adage of 'a right to my opinion' to creep back into your public or private life. Debate and discussion form an important part of our intellectual lives; you don't have to change your mind, but it's worth considering why your partner disagrees...

___

Throughout my blogging I've considered issues of free speech and the way the rights of expression intersects with our daily lives. Check out a discussion of the voices you're not hearing online @ Rightzblock - The Right to Free Speech? or my discussion of the role of civil disobedience, the ultimate expression of opinion @ Rightzblock - You Can't Do That!

You can't do that!

So I was talking about civil disobedience wasn't I? 

It had been all over the newspapers in Australia that a young guy had faked a press release to make a statement about the environment. This in turn caused stocks in a mining company to dive. This guy broke the law and some politicians were calling for quite severe punishment, while others were situating him in a tradition of civil disobedience.

(check out my post @ http://rightzblock.blogspot.fr/2013/01/civil-disobedience.html)

This event was a dramatic, news-attention grabbing event which the Australian Greens Party situated in a long tradition of action and protest within the Australian community. These include environmental protests; most notoriously the Franklin River Dam protests in the eighties. Women's suffrage in Australia also benefitted enormously around the turn of the twentieth century from women willing to stand against an oppressive system.

Throughout October and November of last year there were numerous and long running hunger strikes in detention centers facilitated by Australia; these were supported by protests and marches on the mainland. Here we saw people defying official policies, occupying public spaces and making bold physical statements attempting to address the government policy on processing asylum seekers. Many of these people were already imprisoned in a detention center while others ran the risk of arrest which might lead to fines and or jail time.

If you want to talk about, read about or even just think about the notion of civil disobedience a few names generally come up; I'm thinking Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr, Aung San Suu Kyi. These are people that have stood up and made themselves heard because they saw injustice, even when it went against the law of the day. Their actions took many forms, some of which we might find quite benign in Australian society; things like occupying space that was reserved only for white people, or speaking out against the government that perpetuated injustice through it's laws and policies. 

In Australia you are generally allowed to speak your mind on any topic, expressing any viewpoint; this includes the enlightened and the repugnant. Our laws respect the right of expression and we trust in the public to gather and filter information on which they will make their decisions. This is not always so throughout the world. Online activists and bloggers in Vietnam are currently serving lengthy sentences for posting so called 'subversive' material and in perhaps the most visible case worldwide members of the Russian band 'Pussy Riot' are serving time for an anti government film clip.

One name inseparable with civil disobedience is the America philosopher, writer and lakeside camper named Henry David Thoreau. In his essay 'On the Duty of Civil Disobedience' he lays out the framework, indeed the ethos for living a life of civil disobedience. He outlines the need to live a life ruled by conscience even if this contravenes the law of the day. Further he acknowledges where conscience and law disagree we have an obligation to disobey the law, even go to jail for it. Thoreau was protesting against America's slave trade and their was in Mexico but his principles stand for time immemorial. 

Laws are not always right or just. This can be clearly seen throughout history and we must trust in our conscience to show us where unjust laws exist today. Standing against an unjust law is not an easy or simple choice to make and history has also shown us that civil disobedience often comes at the cost of ones personal liberty.

So far I feel like I've made only a brief tour of civil disobedience, protest and the like and this is not the full story. PersonallyvI feel it's an important part of our lives as citizens and that this is demonstrated in the amazing achievements and liberties gained by people speaking out. 

What about the rest of you though: how far would you go, or maybe you feel this is all just wrong? This is a topic that involves every person, on every issue. Share your opinion here, or you can tweet me @rightzblock. Love to here from you...

Followup on Ranjini's story...

Hi all,

I've been diligently working on a follow-up to my last post about civil disobedience that I hope to post soon but I want to interrupt with an update on an earlier post. A little while back I wrote about the detention in Australia of a young, refugee named Ranjini (if you'd like to read it - http://rightzblock.blogspot.fr/2012/12/life-imprisonment.html).

Ranjini was pregnant and there has been a lot of work by a lot of people to help free her before the birth of her baby. Well on the 15th of January Ranjini gave birth to baby boy named Paartheepan or Paari. Unfortunately she had not been freed from immigration detention at the time and as I understand it she has now been returned to Villawood detention center.

Today I'd like to share with you a letter I wrote to my local federal member challenging her on this issue. If you're in reading this in Australia and you feel strongly about this issue I'd challenge you to write to your local member as well. It's easy to do; you'll find their email contact online. If you're not in Australia, perhaps you could get on Twitter and message our Prime Minister on @JuliaGillard. I believe that this is a serious issue, deserving of attention just as I believe that a strong, engaged group of people can make a difference when they raise their voices.

Here's the letter:

Dear Minister,

I have written to you in the past regarding the current government's policies on refugees and asylum seekers. I do not support policies of mandatory detention nor do I support punitive, 'no advantage' policies regarding the processing of boat arrivals. As I have mentioned in the past, it is well documented in the scientific literature that detention has negative physical and psychological consequences for those detained. All of these points I feel must be acted on by a government that is both signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Refugees and a member of the United Nations Security Council.

Today I write out of urgency and sadness on the impacts of these issues. On the 15th of January 2013 a young Sri Lankan woman named Ranjini gave birth to a baby boy in detention. As I understand it both Ranjini and her son have now been returned to Villawood detention center. My understanding of the case is that Ranjini has received a positive refugee assessment from the government but a negative security assessment from ASIO. She now faces indefinite detention without a right to appeal. That's means that the current government is presiding over an illogical, unjust system and the consequence is a newborn child, innocent of any crime is locked up.     

Ranjini's story is not the only tale of detention deserving of attention. It is however the most striking case of the impersonal, bureaucratic attitude both the government and the opposition take of refugee issues. This is not about statistics of numbers on boats; this is a child born in Australian that is deserving of the protections our society offers.  If you are not currently aware of groundswell of support for Ranjini I would recommend you check out the website 'letters for Ranjini' (http://lettersforranjini.com/) for some perspectives on the public's feelings on this issue.

I am a voter in the electorate of Sydney and I would ask you to respond as my local member. I also challenge you to raise this issue in all it's gravity with your colleagues. Ranjini's story raises very real questions about Australia's approach to human rights and justice. If we cannot as a society protect those most vulnerable and respect the rights of those unable to protect themselves we must be judged poorly in the eyes of the world.

More importantly though I would ask you to utilise what influence you have within your party and the government to help free Ranjini and her newborn son before untold harm is done to this new life.

Yours faithfully,

Andrew Pople