NT Anti-Discrimination Act threatens creative humour like Tim Minchin

More than 5000 people went to see Tim Minchin’s Darwin Festival concert. But his brand of humour, and artists like him, could be banned in the NT under new laws. Have your say

MORE than 5000 people packed the Gardens Amphitheatre last Saturday night for Tim Minchin’s Darwin Festival concert.

We should hope they enjoyed the comedian/singer’s show, because his work could soon be unlawful in the Northern Territory.

Minchin is offensive – hilariously so.

But causing offence will land you in legal hot water here if the NT government gets its way.

The government is pushing ahead with legislation it first floated five years ago to reform the Anti-Discrimination Act.

Much of it is sensible.

But it includes a provision that would make it unlawful to “offend” or “insult” another person on the basis of their disability, sexual orientation, religious beliefs and gender identity or intersex status.

Despite receiving almost 200 submissions – many warning of the dangers of this move – the provision is still included in the government’s latest draft exposure Bill.

One of atheist Minchin’s favourite party tricks is to get the crowd to sing along to a lovely hymn called “I love Jesus”.

Just when they’re feeling comfortable he inserts the next line – “I hate f*ggots”.

It’s incredibly funny and outrageously offensive. In fact you could be offended on the basis of your religious beliefs, or your sexual orientation, depending on your ability to detect sarcasm (a dying art in this country, but in case you’re still unsure and screaming that I’m promoting the work of raging homophobe, the joke was on Jesus).

Comedian, actor, writer, musician, poet, composer, and songwriter Tim Minchin. Picture: Floss Adams.

Or you could choose not to be offended at all and just have a good laugh.

The point is, offence is subjective. What offends one person might be of no concern to another.

Yet the government wants one person – the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner – to be the arbiter of what is insulting or offensive and who should face sanction for such “unlawful” behaviour.

There’s an exemption to protect artists like Minchin and publishers making comment in the public interest, but the exemption relies on the defence that what is being said (or sung) is being done reasonably and in good faith.

And again, one person is the initial arbiter of what is reasonable.

Many left-leaning governments – once the great champions of free speech – have been attempting to implement laws similar to those proposed in the NT, with similar problems.

The New Zealand government wants to toughen hate speech laws with maximum penalties of a $50,000 fine or three years’ jail.

Matt Cunningham.

But when she was asked to give an example of the sort of speech that might fall foul of these laws, the best NZ Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern could offer was: “When you see it you know it”.

This kind of ambiguity is hardly basis for a law that could see someone spend three years in prison.

Supporters of the NT government’s changes – pushed by a Labor government with a progressive Anti-Discrimination Commissioner – might want to consider what could happen with a change in government.

What if a conservative Christian became Chief Minister and their government appointed a conservative Christian as the commissioner?

Would they be comfortable if that commissioner started accepting complaints by Christians who had been subjected to offence or ridicule?

What if their complaints were for being ridiculed for their views on issues like same-sex marriage or late-term abortion?

If they claimed to be offended, should that be enough to allow a complaint to proceed? This is not an impossible – or even improbable – scenario.

And it would have the effect of stifling progress on issues that past generations of progressives fought hard to achieve.

Most people still agree free speech is essential to the function of a robust democracy. Supporting this principle can sometimes mean supporting speech you passionately disagree with.

This government’s attempt to curtail free speech could have an unintended and chilling effect.